.A.T  O  JST  E  ML  E  1ST  T. 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


THE    SACRIFICIAL,    IN    CONTRAST    WITH    THE 
PENAL,  SUBSTITUTIONARY,  AND  MERELY 
MORAL  OR  EXEMPLARY  THEO- 
RIES OF  PROPITIATION. 


S.  G.  BURNEY,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  in  Cumberland  University. 


"  Search  the  Scriptures,   .    .   .   they  are  they  that  testify  of 
me." — The  Great   Teacher. 

"  I  speak  as  to  wise  men;  judge  ye  what  I  say." — Paul. 


NASHVILLE,  TENN.: 

CUMBERLAND  PRESBYTERIAN  PUBLISHING  HOUSE. 

1888, 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1888, 

BY  UKV.  S.  G.  BURNEY, 
In  the  office  of  the.  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


TO     MY 

HIGHLY  ESTEEMED 

PERSONAL  FRIEND  AND  BROTHER, 

"WELL  TRIED  AND  TRUE," 

HONORABLE  JOHN  FRIZZELL, 

THIS  WORK  IS  RESPECTFULLY  INSCRIBED, 

IN  ATTESTATION  OF  HIS  HIGH 

MORAL  WORTH; 

ALSO, 

AS   A   HUMBLE 

EXPRESSION   OF  GRATITUDE 

FOR     THE     VALUABLE     SERVICES 

RENDERED  THE  AUTHOR 

IN   BRINGING  OUT 

THIS   BOOK. 


2209822 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION 1 

PABT  I.— REVIEW  OF  CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY. 

CHAPTER     I. — Preliminary  Statement 11 

n. — Soteriology  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers 24 

III.— Soteriology  of  the  Patrists 28 

IV.— SEC.  1.  Conflicting  Theories  of  Soteriology 35 

2.  Dissensions  Arise 36 

3.  Anselm  Rejected  Claims  of  Satan 37 

V. — SEC.  1.  Soteriology  of  the  Reformation 43 

2.  Grotius'  Soteriology 45 

3.  Anselinic  and  Grotian  Soteriology  Contrasted  .    .  47 
VI. — SEC.  1.  Liniborch  and  Curcellaeus 52 

2.  Arminian  Authors 56 

VII.— SEC.  1.  Limborch's  Soteriology 61 

2.  John  Wesley's  Views 68 

3.  Rer.  John  Fletcher's  Views 70 

4.  Richard  Watson  on  Effects  of  Atonement     ...  74 

6.  Dr.  Clark's  Views 76 

6.  General  Statements 78 

VHL— Dr.  Charles  Hodge's  Theory  Considered 82 

IX. — Reatus  Culpse  et  Reatus  Poense 108 

X.— SEC.  1.  Appeal  to  the  Bible 121 

2.  Reconciliation 122 

3.  Dr.  Hodge's  Terms 126 

4.  Summary  of  Re-view 128 

PABT  IL— NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

CHAPTER      I. — Preliminary  Statements 131 

SEC.  1.  Divine  Justice  and  Law 133 

2.  God  is  Sovereign  and  Free •    •    •  137 

3.  Sin  not  Debt,  but  Crime 138 

II. — SEC.  1.  Natural  or  Human  Atonement 145 

2.  Some  Facts  Concerning  These  Cases  of  Atonement  151 

III.— SEC.  1.  Bible  Usage  of  the  Word  Atonement 162 

2.  Particular  Instances  of  Its  Bible  Use 164 

3.  Poll-tax  Atonement 168 

4.  Atonement  in  Relation  to  the  Golden  Calf  .    .    .  170 

5.  Atonement  for  Treason 172 

6.  Atonement  for  Seduction 174 


(v) 


vi  CONTENTS. 

CIIAPTKH  IV.— SEC.  1.  Some  (iencral  Statements      176 

2.  Requirements  of  Mediatorship 178 

3.  Men  Can  Not  Make  Atonement 181 

V.— The  Conclusion  Reached 186 

VI.— The  renal  ami  Non-Penal  Theory  of  Christ's  Death  Con- 
trasted          ....  190 

VII. — No  Penalty  in  Atonement,  Human  or  Divine 20f> 

VIII.— .SEC.  1.  Christ's  Stillcrings  Like  Those  of  Moses    ....  219 

2.  Infinite  Personality 220 

8.  Christ's  Last  Prayer  on  the  Cross 221 

IX. — The  Tabernacle  Atonements 220 

X. — The  Scape-goat  Considered 248 

XI.— Relation  of  Christ's  Suffering  to  His  Propitiation    ...  258 

.            XII.— The  Question  Tested  by  the  Bible  Facts 271 

XIII. — SEC.  1.  Christians  Bearing  One  Another's  Burdens   .    .    .  288 

2.  Another  Text  Kelied  Upon  by  Ponalists  ....  289 

3.  Christ  A  Ransom  for  Many 297 

4.  Christ  Redeems  Us  by  His  Blood,  Ktc 299 

5.  The  Prepositional  Argument 303 

XIV. — Some  Special  Questions  Concerning  Atonement    ....  307 

XV.— SEC.  1.  AVas  Christ  Bound  by  the  Same  Divine  Law  that 

Binds  All  Other  Men  ? 322 

2.  Did  Christ  Obey  the  Law   in  Place  of  Those  for 

Whom  He  Died? 323 

3.  How  Are  We  Saved  by  the  Mediation  of  Christ  ?  350 

4.  How  is  Unification  With  Christ  Secured?    ...  339 
XVI.— SEC.  1.  Sufficiency  and  Redundancy  of  Merit  in  Christ    .  345 

2.  Typal  Relation  Between  Adam  sind  Christ  .    .     .  350 

3.  Relation  of  Believers  to  the  Law 354 

4.  Why  Are  All  Not  Delivered  by  the  Obedience  of 

Christ? 356 

5.  The  Scriptures  Teach  a  Non- Penal  .Scheme  of  .Sal- 

vation       358 

XVII.— SEC-.  1.  Libertarian  .Substitution 361 

2.  Importation    of    Spiritual    Life    Not    in    Conflict 

With  Natural  Law 364 

XVIII. — SEC.  1.  Anselmic  and  Pelagian  Sotcriology  Compared  .     .  372 

2.  Substitution  an  Incubus  to  Christianity   ....  376 

3.  All  Fiction  Excluded 378 

PART  III.— EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT.   .                  .  380 


PREFACE. 


f*  In  the  following  pages  is  presented  a  scheme  of 
Soteriology  different  in  many  respects  from  any  the- 
ory known  to  me.  Yet  it  may  be  true  that  there  is 
not  a  new  idea  in  the  whole  work.  New  ideas  are 
rare  things. 

Be  this  as  it  may,  the  ideas — the  facts  with  which 
I  build — are  so  combined  and  adjusted,  as  to  form 
a  theory  materially  different  from  any  I  have  seen. 
Yet,  it  is  on  its  practical  side  what  anti-Calvinists 
generally  preach. 

The  work  is  divided  into  three  parts;  the  first 
comprising  a  very  brief  statement  of  all  the  princi- 
pal theories  of  Soteriology  from  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity to  the  present  time.  The  more  radical  de- 
fects of  these  theories  have  been  briefly  indicated. 

The  second  part  comprises  what  I  conceive  to  be 
the  true  nature  of  the  plan  of  salvation  through 
Christ,  the  great  Sin-bearer  and  Propitiator.  In 
the  discussion  of  this  part  of  the  subject,  the  re- 
spective characteristics  of  the  substitutionary  and 
non-substitutionary  theory  are  often  set  in  con- 
trast. 

(vii) 


viii  PREFACE. 

The  third  part  comprises  a  brief  argument  in 
favor  of  an  atonement  for  all  men. 

The  matter  was  originally  prepared  for  the  theo- 
logical classes,  and  was  delivered  to  them  in  lecture 
form.  For  convenience  this  form  is  retained  in  the 
book. 

At  one  time  I  thought  of  publishing  the  whole 
in  three  volumes,  each  part  forming  one  volume. 
But,  for  reasons  deemed  sufficient,  an  abridgement 
of  the  whole  is  published  in  one  volume.  All  the 
parts,  especially  the  first  and  third,  have  been  very 
much  abridged.  The  third  part,  as  originally  pre- 
pared for  the  classes,  comprises  a  full  examination 
of  the  arguments  for  and  against  a  limited  atone- 
ment. 

The  arguments  against  substitution,  as  presented 
in  these  pages,  were  prepared  before  "Atonement 
and  Law  "  became  known  to  the  theological  classes. 
The  author  of  this  vigorous  book  rejected  the  old 
arguments  as  quite  insufficient,  and  attempted  the 
defense  of  substitution  by  a  new  line  of  argument. 

Of  course  my  refutation  of  the  old  arguments 
was  no  refutation  of  the  new.  This  fact  furnished 
the  occasion  for  my  little  book,  "Atonement  and 
Law  Reviewed."  That  book  and  this  furnishes  a 
complete  refutation  of  the  doctrine  of  substitution 
in  every  hitherto  attempted  mode  of  defense. 


PREFACE.  ix 

My  arguments  are  directed  chiefly  against  substi- 
tution in  its  rigid  Calvinistic  form,  which  is  its  only 
real  form.  For  to  substitute  is  to  put  one  thing  or 
person  in  the  place  of  another.  Hence,  if  one  does 
not  take  the  place  of  another,  then  there  is  no  sub- 
stitution. Hence,  if  my  arguments  are  conclusive 
against  Calvinistic  substitution,  they  are  conclusive 
against  all  substitution.  For  double  imputation  ^ 
is  the  fundamental  idea  of  substitution,  or  the  put- 
ting of  one  thing  in  the  place  of  another. 

Consequently,  if  there  is  no  change  or  double 
imputation,  then  there  is  no  substitution;  or  to 
deny  double  imputation  is  to  deny  substitution  it- 
self. It  is  to  affirm  and  deny  the  same  thing  at  the 
same  time. 

A  conditional  substitution  or  change  is  an  inher-  y 
ent  impossibility.  It  confounds  the  actual  and  the 
possible.  It  affirms  that  what  w,  is  not,  but  only 
may  be.  To  say  that  Christ  is  our  substitute  if  we 
believe  on  him,  otherwise  he  is  not,  distinguishes 
between  those  in  whose  place  he  died,  and  those  for 
whom  he  is  a  substitute.  This  is  manifestly  a  dis- 
tinction without  a  difference;  is,  in  fact  a  verbal 
contradiction. 

This  conditional  substitution  assumes  that  the 
sinner  can  come  to  Christ  independently  of  Christ. 
But  the  Bible  teaches  that  it  is  the  sufferings  and 


x  PREFACE. 

resurrection  of  Christ  that  render  repentance,  etc., 
possible.     (Luke  xxiv.  47.) 

On  Christ  as  risen  all  divine  influence  depends. 
We  come  to  God  only  by  him.  (John  xiv.  6.) 
Conditional  substitution  is  impossible  because  it 
conditions  a  past  event  upon  a  future  event.  A 
past  event  may  condition  a  future  event,  but  mani- 
festly a  future  event  can  not  condition  a  past 
event. 

Christ's  death  is  a  past  event,  an  accom- 
plished fact.  His  death  was  substitutionary,  or  it 
was  not.  If  it  was,  then  he  does  not  become  our 
substitute  by  our  believing  on  him;  for  ever}''  body 
knows  that  a  subsequent  act  can  not  change  the 
character  of  a  prior  act.  But,  if  Christ  did  not  die 
as  our  substitute,  then  no  act  of  ours  can  make  his 
death  substitutionary;  and  if  he  saves  us  at  all  he 
saves  us  as  our  benefactor,  and  not  as  our  substi- 
tute. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  I  have  addressed  my  ar- 
guments chiefly  against  substitution,  as  held  by 
Calvinists,  rather  than  the  various  modified  theo- 
ries proposed  by  anti-Calvinists. 

From  1834  to  1852  I  literally  had  no  distinctly 
defined  theory  of  the  nature  of  the  atonement. 
Perhaps  no  period  of  my  ministry  was  more  pro- 
ductive of  apparent  good. 


PREFACE.  xi 

I  taught  then,  as  now,  that  men  are  saved  not  by 
the  suffering  of  Christ,  but  by  Christ  himself. 

In  1852  I  had  occasion  to  study  the  subject.  The 
consequence  was  the  adoption  of  a  modified  form 
of  the  Grotian  or  governmental  theory.  This  I 
thought  preferable  to  the  Anselmic,  or  satisfaction 
theory.  With  this,  however,  I  was  never  satisfied, 
as  I  indicated  twenty  years  after  in  my  only  pub- 
lished statement  on  the  subject  prior  to  the  publi- 
cation of  ' '  Atonement  and  Law  Reviewed. ' ' 

One  among  many  reasons  for  this  dissatisfaction 
is  that  it  assumes  a  real  difference  between  admin- 
istrative and  retributive  law,  while,  in  fact,  these 
are  not  two  laws,  but  only  two  aspects  of  one  and 
the  same  law. 

The  great  moral  law  is  in  respect  to  God  the  rule 
of  his  administration,  and,  hence,  is  conceived  of 
as  administrative  law.  But  the  same  law  in  re- 
spect to  men  is  the  rule  of  obedience,  which  being 
a  concreation  of  the  human  mind  is  appropriately 
called  retributive  law. 

All  human  law  is  administrative;  all  divine  law 
is  both  administrative  and  retributive.  God  gov- 
erns the  physical  world  as  well  as  the  moral  by  law, 
and  all  the  subjects  of  law,  in  the  realm  of  matter 
and  mind,  are  in  some  way  affected  by  the  admin- 
istration of  their  appropriate  laws. 


xii  PREFACE. 

Hence,  the  retributions  of  moral  law  are  simply 
God's  acts  administering  his  own  law.  Conse- 
quently, these  are  not  two  laws  but  one,  which  we 
may  consider  under  two  phases,  viz.  :  administra- 
tive and  retributive.  But,  as  there  is  but  one  law, 
so  there  is  but  one  penalty. 

While  holding  this  theory,  I  often  tried  to  dis- 
criminate between  administrative  and  retributive 
penalty.  I  labored  to  conceive  how  Christ  could 
suffer  the  penalty  of  the  former  without  enduring 
the  penalty  of  the  latter.  Of  course  I  failed. 
Even  an  archangel  might  be  very  well  excused  for 
inability  to  discriminate  between  a  thing  and  itself. 
In  the  last  analysis  this  governmental  theory  or 
administrative  theory  resolves  itself  into  the  satis- 
faction theory,  or  into  nothing.  If  Christ  suffered 
retributive  penalty  in  our  place,  then  the  satisfac- 
tion theory  is,  of  course,  true.  If  he  did  not  surfer 
this  retributive  penalty,  then  he  suffered  no  penalty 
at  all,  and  the  administrative  theory  vanishes  into 
air. 

Seeing  these  facts,  I  was  shut  up  to  the  necessity 
either  of  adopting  Anselmic  penal  substitution,  or 
of  rejecting  substitution  in  toto.  This  I  would 
have  done  over  thirty  years  ago  if  I  could  have 
seen  how  any  atonement  is  possible  without  sub- 
stitution. 


PREFACE.  xiii 

But  I  now  thank  the  Giver  of  all  good  that  /  do 
see  how  real  atonement  is  made  without  substitu- 
tion; also,  how  no  real  atonement  can  be  made  by 
penal  substitution;  because  salvation  by  the  deeds 
of  the  law,  whether  performed  by  principal  or  sub- 
stitute, is  not  salvation  by  atonement  or  by  grace. 

In  "Atonement  and  Law  Reviewed,"  it  is  be- 
lieved by  nearly  all  those  whose  opinions  I  have 
learned,  the  new  arguments  in  favor  of  substitution 
are  hopelessly  overthrown.  In  the  present  work,  if 
I  am  not  mistaken,  the  old  arguments  are  as  thor- 
oughly answered.  Of  course  an  answer  to  the  new 
is  not  necessarily  an  answer  to  the  old,  nor  con- 
versely, except  so  far  as  these  arguments  rest  on 
principles  common  to  both  lines  of  defense.  It 
will,  therefore,  contribute  much  to  a  thorough 
understanding  of  the  subject  to  study  both  books. 

In  working  out  the  exceedingly  difficult  question 
of  atonement,  I  followed  no  human  authority — 
not  even  my  "Confession  of  Faith" — for,  highly 
as  I  esteem  this  authority,  I  have  ever  recognized 
it  as  subordinate  to  the  word  of  God. 

The  Bible  was  my  standard  of  supreme  authority. 
If  it  had  led  me  into  conflict  with  my  Confession 
of  Faith  on  any  points,  I  should  have  rejected  it  on 
such  points  without  hesitation.  Happily,  how- 
ever, the  Bible  and  Confession  are  in  full  accord. 


xiv  PREFACE 

Being,  as  I  verily  believe,  in  full  accord  with  the 
Bible,  I  have  a  conscience  void  of  offense  toward 
God;  and  being  in  full  accord  with  our  Confession 
of  Faith,  I  have  a  conscience  void  of  offense 
toward  my  brethren.  I  have  not  discussed  atone- 
ment as  an  isolated  question,  but  in  its  relations  to 
other  vital  questions.  It  is  not  merely  a  treatise 
on  atonement,  but  is  rather  a  full  scheme  of  sote- 
riology — a  somewhat  detailed  statement  of  the  plan 
of  salvation.  While  this  fact  will  give  critics  a 
wider  field  for  the  exercise  of  their  astuteness,  it 
will  be  more  satisfactory  to  those  who  desire  to 
gain  rather  than  give  light. 

Among  anti-Calvinistic  substitutionists,  there 
never  has  been  a  consensus  as  to  the  exact  sense  of 
substitution.  Hence,  we  have  about  as  many 
theories  as  writers.  These  theories  not  only  con- 
tradict one  another,  but  each  one  involves  the 
principle  of  self-contradiction,  viz.:  that  in  some 
sense  Christ's  death  does  and  does  not  save  us.  To 
construct  a  non-suicidal  scheme  of  anti-Calvinistic 
substitution  is  an  inherent  impossibility.  We 
might  as  successfully  attempt  to  construct  a  trian- 
gular circle. 

In  fact,  what  some  mean  by  substitution  is  prop- 
erly benefaction.  Tradition  and  habit  have  bound 
them  with  the  fetters  of  a  false  terminology  which 


PREFACE.  xv 

involves  them  in  a  false  theory,  requiring  the  help 
of  legal  fictions  and  realistic  assumptions. 

The  plan  presented  in  this  work  rejects  substitu- 
tion and  all  legal  fictions  and  realistic  conceits,  and 
deals  with  law,  sin,  its  penalties,  and  salvation  in  a 
practical  common  sense  way,  as  the  scientist  deals 
with  the  facts  of  nature,  taking  his  theories  from 
his  ascertained  facts,  and  not  his  facts  from  his  the- 
ories, as  substitutionists  are  wont  to  do.  If  I  have 
presented  the  plan  of  salvation  in  a  form  more  hon- 
oring to  God,  more  in  accord  with  his  justice  and 
benevolence,  more  intelligible  to  the  human  mind, 
and  more  in  accord  with  our  noblest  instincts  and 
the  demands  cf  reason;  more  in  accord  with  all  that 
is  known  of  God  and  law  in  the  realms  of  matter 
and  mind,  and  especially  in  better  accord  with  the 
Bible,  than  any  possible  scheme  of  substitution  can 
be,  then  the  reader,  I  think,  can  not  reject  it  with- 
out injustice  to  himself. 

Of  the  ultimate  general  acceptance  of  the  theory, 
I  have  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt. 

I,  of  course,  am  sensible  of  no  defects  in  the 
argument.  I  am,  however,  sensible  of  defects  in 
other  respects. 

The  order  of  the  discussion  is  not  as  perfect  as  it 
might  be.  Some  repetitions  also  occur.  These, 
though  considered  a  blemish  in  authorship,  may 


xvi  PREFACE. 

prove  of  some  advantage  to  the  reader  by  familiar- 
izing him  with  ideas  and  forms  of  statement  with 
which  he  is  not  familiar. 

I  invite  thorough  investigation — do  not  deprecate 
legitimate  criticism;  what  is  erroneous  ought  to  be 
exposed  and  corrected.  But  I  do  deprecate  cap- 
tiousness,  caricature,  and  misrepresentation  —  the 
cheapest  and  the  meanest  of  polemic  vices,  and  the 
chief  stock  in  trade  of  "small  critics}'1 

If  "  this  work  be  of  man  it  will  come  to  naught; 
but  if  it  be  of  God,  ye  can  not  overthrow  it."  "  O 
my  Father  .  .  .  not  as  I  will,  but  as  thou  wilt." 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  Infinite  and  the  Unconditioned  alone  is  in- 
capable of  mistakes.  God  can  not  err.  But  the  in- 
finite and  unconditioned  can  not  create  the  infinite 
and  the  unconditioned.  This  would  be  to  create 
beings  equal  to  himself,  which  is  on  many  accounts 
absurd.  The  very  idea  of  a  created  unconditioned, 
self-existent  being  is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 
The  limitation  is  not  in  the  divine  power,  but  in 
the  incongruity  of  the  thing  itself;  for  what  is  cre- 
ated can  not  be  unconditioned  or  self-existent. 

The  Infinite,  therefore,  can  produce  only  the 
finite.  But  finiteness  in  a  rational  creature  neces- 
sarily gives  the  possibility  of  mistake  or  sin,  but 
does  not  necessitate  or  cause  it.  It  gives  the  possi- 
bility of  sin;  else  neither  man  nor  any  of  the  angels 
had  fallen.  It  does  not  create  the  necessity  of  sin; 
else  all  the  angels  had  fallen.  Hence,  we  conclude 
that  all  rational  creatures  are  created  with  the  pos- 
sibility of  sinning,  but  not  with  the  necessity  of 
sinning. 

The  old  conceit  that  God  could  create  a  moral 
world,  absolutely  incapable  of  sin,  is  contradicted  by 
all  that  we  know  of  God  and  of  the  nature  of  moral 
government.  Such  a  world  would  require  the  utter 
negation  of  all  creature  freedom  and  a  necessitated 

(i) 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

virtue  or  obedience,  which  is  a  contradiction  in  the 
adjective. 

Certainly  God  is  free,  but  his  freedom  does  not 
consist  in  a  choice  between  the  possible  and  the  im- 
possible— between  a  world  capable  of  sinning  and  a 
world  incapable  of  sinning,  but  in  choosing  between 
creating  and  not  creating.  This  conclusion  is  sup- 
ported by  the  fact  that  sin  does  exist  among  all  or- 
ders of  rational  creatures  known  to  us. 

How  can  the  creation  of  rational  creatures  under 
such  liabilities  be  reconciled  with  the  wisdom  and 
goodness  of  God  ?  Certainly  we  can  not  know  God 
to  perfection.  His  thoughts  are  not  as  our  thoughts 
nor  his  ways  as  our  ways.  We  may  know  more  as 
to  what  he  does  than  as  to  why  or  how  he  does 
things.  Still  it  is  perhaps  not  impossible  to  vindi- 
cate to  human  reason  his  goodness  in  the  creation 
of  the  angel  world.  This  I  shall  not  here  attempt. 

As  far  as  we  know  there  is  a  marked  difference 
between  the  conditions  in  which  angels  and  men 
were  created.  The  former  without  an  animal  nat- 
ure and  without  the  capacity  of  progeny,  but  the 
latter  with  an  animal  nature  and  with  progenitory 
capacity. 

These  two  facts  constitute  an  immense  difference 
between  the  primitive  states  of  angels  and  men,  and 
in  this  difference,  perhaps,  we  should  find  the  reason 
for  the  great  difference  in  the  divine  economies 
toward  them.  The  first  human  pair  brought  evil 
upon  themselves  by  voluntary  disobedience,  just  as 
did  the  fallen  angels.  Why,  then,  were  they  fa- 
vored with  a  different  economy  and  one  more  favor- 


INTRODUCTION.  3 

able  than  was  given  to  the  angels?  The  reasons 
may  be,  first,  that  they  were,  because  of  their  dual 
nature,  subject  to  greater  temptations. 

The  sensuous  organism,  the  seat  of  carnal  appe- 
tites, is  distinctly  recognized  as  a  fruitful  source  of 
evil.  The  animal  desire  for  food  is  named  as  a 
prominent  ingredient  of  the  temptation  in  Eden, 
and  the  first  temptation  with  which  the  sinless 
Christ  was  assailed  after  his  forty  days'  fast  was  an 
appeal  to  his  sensuous  appetite. 

The  angels,  it  is  suppposed,  were  by  their  nat- 
ure free  from  this  fruitful  source  of  seduction. 
They  were  capable  of  assault  only  through  the  as- 
pirations and  susceptibilities  peculiar  to  mind  or 
spirit.  But  the  first  human  pair  were  subject  to  all 
the  temptations  common  to  both  the  animal  and 
spiritual  nature.  This  may  be  one  reason  why 
they  were  favored  with  a  different  and  better  econo- 
my than  were  the  angels.  Secondly,  the  fact  that 
the  first  human  pair  were  intended  as  the  progeni- 
tors of  a  numerous  race,  any  one,  or  all,  of  whom 
might  be  involved  in  moral  evil  by  the  disobe- 
dience of  an  ancestor  constitutes,  perhaps,  the  chief 
reason  why  God  deals  with  angels  and  men  by  dif- 
ferent methods. 

We  know  so  little  of  these  matters,  particularly 
of  the  angels,  that  it  is  not  very  safe  to  dogmatize. 
The  case  of  the  descendants  of  Adam  is  immensely 
different  from  that  of  Adam  himself.  His  evils  came 
through  his  own  voluntary  action.  His  children 
are  born  into  a  state  of  evil.  They,  of  course,  were 
in  no  sense  the  originators  of  this  evil  state.  They 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

are  involved  in  the  evil  consequences  of  a  sin  over 
which  they  have  no  more  control  than  they  have 
over  their  own  creation,  and  that,  too,  by  an  order 
of  things  which  God  has  established.  But  exactly 
what  that  order  is,  or  how  Adam's  sin  involved  his 
posterity  in  moral  evil  is  a  question  that  has  been 
much  discussed,  but  never  very  satisfactorily  set- 
tled. The  most  popular  solutions  proposed  are  the 
following: 

1.  It  is  maintained  that   the   first   human   pair, 
when  they  sinned,   comprised   all  human   nature; 
consequently  that  their  act  was  the  sin  of  human 
nature  and  the  sin  was  as  really  the  sin  of  every 
human  being  as  it  was  of  the  first  pair.     Hence,  all 
are  alike  justly  condemned  to  eternal  death. 

This  seems  to  be  the  theory  asserted  in  the  West- 
minster Catechism.  It  assumes  that  realism  is 
true.  Its  fallacy  I  have  sufficiently  exposed  in  my 
work  on  anthropology. 

2.  Others,  rejecting   realism,  teach    that   Adam 
was  divinely  constituted  the  federal  representative 
of  his  race,  and,  having  sinned,  his  sin  became  by 
imputation  the  sin  of  all  his  posterity  and  justly 
subjects  them  "to  all  the  miseries  of  this  life,  to 
death  itself,  and  the  pains  of  hell  forever. ' ' 

This  seems  to  be  what  is  taught  in  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession  of  Faith.  This  view  assumes  that 
guilt  is  transportable  from  one  person  to  another. 
It  rests  on  legal  fictions — that  is,  on  airy  nothings. 

3.  Another  solution  is  that  Adam  was  in  some 
way  the  representative  of  his  race  which  would  have 
been  involved  in  his  sin  had  he  not  repented  and 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

been  brought  into  a  saved  state  prior  to  the  birth 
of  Cain.  Hence,  his  fallen  nature  is  not  imputed 
nor  imparted  to  his  progeny,  who  are  consequently 
born  in  the  same  state  in  which  Adam  was  created. 

Numerous  objections  lie  against  this  theory,  not 
the  least  of  which  is  that  in  the  last  analysis  it 
saves  the  sinner,  or  rather  human  beings,  by  works, 
just  as  Adam  would  have  been  saved  by  works  if  he 
had  never  sinned  at  all. 

This  seems  to  be  the  theory  held  by  Arminius 
and  some — not  all — of  his  followers. 

4.  A  fourth  view  bearing  on  the  question  is  that 
Adam's  sin  had  no  evil  effect  upon  his  children; 
that  they  are  born  in  the  same  state  in  which  Adam 
was  created,  and  become  sinners  by  force  of  the  ex- 
ample of  others. 

This  scheme  is  hard  to  reconcile  with  the  Bible, 
and,  if  possible,  still  harder  to  reconcile  with  itself. 
According  to  the  scheme,  a  man  can  not  become  an 
exemplar  without  previously  sinning;  but  he  can  not 
sin  without  a  previous  example.  This  brings  the 
matter  to  a  dead  lock — renders  the  inception  of  sin 
impossible.  Whose  example  led  Eve  into  sin  ?  or 
whose  example  caused  the  first  sin  ?  It  is  too  plain 
to  require  elaboration  that  if  there  can  be  no  sin 
without  prior  example,  and  no  example  without  pri- 
or sin,  then  the  possibility  of  sin  is  quite  excluded. 

5.  The  most  satisfactory  solution  of  the  perplex- 
ing question,   I  think,   is  this:    Adam  by  disobe- 
dience corrupted  his  moral  nature,  and  by  natural 
generation   transmitted   that  moral   corruption    or 
spiritual  death  to  his  children,   just  as  he  trans- 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

mitted   his  physical,    intellectual,    and    sesthetical 
nature  to  them  by  heredity;  like  produces  like. 

This  view  simplifies  the  whole  subject,  makes  it 
intelligible  to  the  common  mind,  supersedes  the 
necessity  of  all  scholastic  and  realistic  conceits,  such 
as  federal  representation  and  judicial  imputation, 
and  sufficiently  accounts  for  the  depravity  of  chil- 
dren, without  committing  us  to  the  regressus  in- 
volved in  the  assumption  that  sin  is  the  result  of 
example,  and  is,  above  all,  in  strict  accord  with  the 
Bible. 

But  a  question  paramount  in  importance  to  that 
just  considered  is,  How  can  the  divine  goodness 
and  honor  be  harmonized  with  any  method  of  ad- 
ministration that  makes  Adam's  sin  a  source  of 
moral  evil  to  his  posterity  ? 

I  reply,  I  should  not  know  how  to  answer  this 
question,  if  it  was  so,  that  no  remedy  is  provided 
for  this  fearful  evil — an  evil  which,  unless  it  is  set 
aside,  or  in  some  way  compensated,  must  result  in 
endless  death — the  death  of  the  immortal  soul ;  and 
for  what  ?  Well,  for  a  sinful  nature — the  source  of 
actual  personal  sin — over  which  we  have  no  more 
control  than  over  our  own  creation.  I  repeat,  if  no 
remedy  was  provided,  no  means  by  which  escape 
from  such  evils  is  possible,  then  I  do  not  know  how 
to  answer  the  question. 

That  an  ample  remedy  has  been  provided  in  the 
gracious  mediation  of  Christ  is  universally  allowed 
by  all  Christian  communions,  except  those  that 
hold  to  unconditional  election  and  reprobation. 
By  some  it  is  maintained  that  the  evils  brought 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

upon  us  by  our  connection  with  the  first  Adam  are 
exactly  counteracted  or  done  away  by  our  relation 
to  the  second  Adam. 

This,  I  think,  is  an  inadequate  and  an  unscrip- 
tural  view  of  the  subject.  If  the  mediation  does 
this  much  and  no  more,  it  certainly  does  some- 
thing for  us,  but  possibly  too  little  to  save  many; 
for  on  this  hypothesis  I  do  not  see  how  we  can  es- 
cape the  necessity  of  saving  ourselves  by  works. 
But  salvation  is  all  of  grace ',  and  in  no  sense  by 
works.  I  prefer  to  say  that  as  our  relation  to  the 
first  Adam  insures  our  depravity,  and  death  in  sin, 
so  our  union  with  the  second  Adam  insures  our 
salvation.  Good  works  are  the  normal  fruits  of 
this  union,  and  not  its  cause.  Fruit  has  no  power 
to  change  the  quality  of  the  tree  that  bears  it. 

Hence,  I  rejoice  in  the  conviction  that  we  gain  im- 
mensely more  by  union  with  the  second  Adam  than 
we  lose  by  our  relation  to  the  first  Adam.  For 
Adam's  obedience  could  have  saved  no  one  but 
himself,  the  Confessions  of  Faith  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding.  Under  the  law  each  must  obey 
for  himself.  But  it  is  much  easier  for  sinners  to 
believe  in  Christ  than  it  was  for  Adam  to  keep  the 
law. 

The  mediation  of  Christ  in  the  interest  of  hu- 
manity not  only  vindicates  the  divine  justice  and 
wisdom,  but  is  a  most  marvelous  display  of  the 
divine  goodness  and  mercy,  such  as  could  not  be 
conceived  by  finite  minds  but  for  its  gracious  reve- 
lation in  God's  word..  For,  rightly  understood,  it 
is  the  supreme  object  of  adoration  in  heaven  and 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

earth.     It  is  the  ineffable  God  in  Christ,  reconcil- 
ing a  sinful  and  lost  world  unto  himself. 

The  question  is  often  pertinently  put  as  to  wheth- 
er mediatorship — a  days'  man  between  God  and  his 
rational  creatures — is  an  essential,  or  only  an  inci- 
dental characteristic  of  a  moral  government  ? 

In  reply,  I  suggest  that  in  relation  to  beings  cre- 
ated, as  we  suppose  the  angels  are,  without  progen- 
ital  relationship,  a  mediator  is  probably  not  an  es- 
sential provision.  At  least  I  see  no  reason  why  it 
should  be  so,  nor  have  we  any  intimation  from  the 
Bible  that  any  has  been  provided. 

But  in  regard  to  beings  created  and  related  as 
are  human  kind,  the  case  is  quite  different.  So 
much  so,  that  a  mediator  seems  to  be  a  prime  ne- 
cessity, or  what  is  necessary  both  to  vindicate  the 
divine  honor  and  to  make  it  possible  for  men  to 
escape  the  consequences  of  inherited  evil.  The 
divine  fatherhood  seems  to  require  some  such  pro- 
vision for  those  created  in  his  own  image  but  sub- 
jected to  unavoidable  moral  evil. 

It  is  generally  represented  that  the  act  of  God  in 
providing  a  mediator  was  the  result  of  his  knowing 
that  the  first  man  would  sin  and  involve  his  pos- 
terity in  ruin,  and  that  compassion  moved  him  to 
provide  the  requisite  means  of  salvation  for  some  or 
all. 

This  view  of  the  subject  seems  to  make  the  me- 
diation of  Christ  a  sort  of  afterthought;  also  im- 
plies that  Adam's  acts,  as  foreseen  by  the  Creator, 
had  much  to  do  in  determining,  modifying,  or 
changing  God's  plan  of  administration  in  relation 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

to  human  beings.  Such  a  procedure  might  not  be 
unworthy  of  finite  beings,  but  seems  to  me  to  be 
derogatory  to  the  wisdom  of  the  infinite  Creator. 

The  mediation  of  Christ,  I  prefer  to  believe,  is 
no  afterthought,  no  mere  expedient  devised  to  meet 
an  unexpected  emergency,  no  adventitious  adjunct 
to  a  previously  formed  but  defective  plan.  The 
mediatorship  of  Christ  is  rather  a  fundamental  part 
of  the  divine  purpose  in  relation  to  humanity,  so 
that  the  functions  of  the  first  and  the  second  Adam 
are  reciprocally  complementary.  Our  relations  to 
the  two  Adams  mutually  imply  each  other,  and 
should  be  regarded  as  the  product  not  of  two  but 
of  one  and  the  same  divine  act ;  so  that  the  purpose 
to  create  humanity  was  the  purpose  to  provide  me- 
diatorship for  them. 

This  view  of  the  subject  releases  us  from  the  ne- 
cessity of  disparaging  the  divine  excellence  by  as- 
suming that  his  plan  of  administration  was  deter- 
mined, or  in  any  way  modified,  by  the  conduct  of 
Adam,  as  it  was  foreknown  to  the  Creator. 

Hence  it  is  that  the  mediation  of  Christ  is  as  old 
as  the  creation.  He  was  ' '  a  lamb  slain  from  the 
fcnmdation  of  the  world."  His  mediation,  too,  was 
just  as  real  and  as  efficacious  before  his  incarnation 
as  it  is  now.  He  was  always  the  "light  of  the 
world, "  "  the  way  and  the  truth  and  the  life, "  "  the 
resurrection  and  the  life."  His  incarnation,  death, 
and  resurrection  add  nothing  to  his  life-giving, 
soul -saving  power.  They  rather  are  the  means  by 
which  he  reveals  himself  to  the  world  and  manifests 
his  love  to  humanity,  demonstrates  his  power  over 


io  INTRODUCTION. 

sin  and  death,  and  shows  himself  an  all-sufficient 
Savior,  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost  all  that  trust 
in  him.  This  manifestation  is  of  immense  moral 
significance,  an  inestimable  boon  to  humanity,  and 
constitutes  the  essential  difference  between  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testament  dispensation. 

But  how  does  Christ,  as  mediator,  save  man? 
This  question  is  variously  answered.  Some  pro- 
pose one  thing  and  some  another.  The  Bible 
method  I  think  is  presented  (imperfectly,  however) 
in  the  following  pages.  To  this  the  reader  is  re- 
spectfully referred. 


PART  I. 

REVIEW  OF  CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PRELIMINARY   STATEMENT. 

The  mediatorship  of  Christ  is  the  great  central 
doctrine  of  the  Bible.  Christ  is  declared  to  be 
"the  Savior  of  all  men,  especially  of  them  that  be- 
lieve." But  how  he  saves  men — whether  by  his 
precept  and  example,  or  by  relaxing  the  rigor  of 
his  law  in  the  interest  of  the  guilty  and  helpless, 
or  by  obeying  the  law  as  a  substitute  of  the  guilty, 
both  in  its  preceptive  and  penal  requirements,  or 
by  imparting  his  own  spiritual  life  to  those  who  are 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins — is  a  question  about 
which  good  and  great  men  very  widely  differ. 

The  doctrine  that  Christ  saves  men  by  becoming 
their  substitute  in  law  and  suffering  in  their  place 
has  obtained  large  currency  in  both  papal  and 
Protestant  countries.  Anselm  (1109),  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  a  scholastic  theologian  of  eminent 
piety  and  wonderful  intellectual  acumen,  it  is  gen- 
erally allowed,  was  the  first  to  formulate  this  view 
of  the  subject. 

The   leading  positions   of  Anselm' s   theory,    as 


12  REVIEW  OF 

given  by  Dr.  Shedd,  (His.  Chris.  Doct.  Vol.  II.,  pp. 
277-8)  are  as  follows: 

"  Beginning  with  the  idea  of  sin,  Anselm  defines 
this  as  the  withholding  from  God  what  is  due  to 
him  from  man.  Sin  is  debt.  But  man  owes  to 
God  the  absolute  and  entire  subjection  of  his  will  to 
the  divine  law  and  will. 

This  is  not  given,  and  hence  the  guilt,  or  debt, 
of  man  to  Deity.  The  extinction  of  this  guilt  does 
not  consist  in  simply  beginning  again  to  subject  the 
will  entirely  to  its  rightful  sovereign,  but  in  giving 
satisfaction  for  the  previous  cessation  in  so  doing. 
God  had  been  robbed  of  his  honor  in  the  past,  and 
it  must  be  restored  to  him  in  some  way,  while  at 
the  same  time  the  present  and  future  honor  due 
him  is  being  given.  But  how  is  man,  who  is  still 
a  sinner,  and  constantly  sinning,  to  render  this 
double  satisfaction,  viz.,  satisfy  the  law  in  the  fut- 
ure by  perfectly  obeying  it,  and  in  the  past  by  en- 
during its  whole  penalty  ? 

It  is  impossible  for  him  to  render  it;  and  yet  this 
impossibility,  argues  Anselm,  does  not  release  him 
from  his  indebtedness  or  guilt,  because  this  impos- 
sibility is  the  effect  of  a  free  act,  and  a  free  act  must 
be  held  responsible  for  all  its  consequences,  in  con- 
formity with  the  ethical  maxim  that  the  cause  is 
answerable  for  the  effect. 

But  now  the  question  arises:  Can  not  the  love 
and  compassion  of  God  abstracted  from  his  justice 
come  in  at  this  point  and  remit  the  sin  of  man  with- 
out any  satisfaction  ? 

This  is  impossible,  because  it  would  be  irregu- 
larity (aliquid  inordinatum}  and  injustice.  If  un- 
righteousness is  punished  neither  in  the  person  of 
the  transgressor,  nor  in  that  of  a  proper  substitute, 
then  unrighteousness  is  not  subject  to  any  law  or 
regulation  of  any  sort;  it  enjoys  more  liberty  than 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  13 

righteousness  itself,  which  would  be  a  contradiction 
and  a  wrong.  . 

Furthermore,  it  would  contradict  the  divine  jus- 
tice itself,  if  the  creature  could  defraud  the  Creator 
of  that  which  is  his  due,  without  giving  any  satis- 
faction for  the  robber)-.  Since  there  is  nothing 
greater  and  better  than  God,  there  is  no  attribute 
more  just  or  necessary  than  that  punitive  righteous- 
ness innate  to  deity,  which  maintains  the  honor  of 
God. 

This  justice,  indeed,  is  God  himself;  so  that  to 
satisfy  it  is  to  satisfy  God  himself. ' ' 

Remarks. — i.  We  are  here  taught  that  man  is  a 
sinner,  and  can  not  save  himself.  This  is  certainly 
true. 

2.  We  are  taught  that  God  can  not  save  the  sin- 
ner, unless  justice  receives  prior  satisfaction  for  hu- 
man sin.  This  plainly  excludes  the  possibility  of 
salvation;  for,  confessedly,  the  sinner  can  not  satis- 
fy justice  for  himself,  and  for  God  to  satisfy  his  own 
justice  in  the  place  of  the  sinner  would  be  to  suffer 
the  penalty  of  his  own  law — that  is,  to  suffer  the 
consequences  of  not  loving  himself,  which  is  simply 
inconceivable.  But,  if  this  was  possible,  it  would 
be  the  same  thing  as  pardoning  sin  without  any 
satisfaction  at  all. 

If  A  owes  B  and  is  unable  to  pay,  and  B  deposits 
the  amount  of  the  debt  to  the  credit  of  A,  the  debt 
is  not  paid  but  forgiven  without  an  equivalent 
value.  This  is  not  satisfaction  of  law,  but  abro- 
gation. 

Again,  if  it  was  possible  for  God  to  satisfy  justice 
in  the  sinner's  place,  such  an  act  would  in  itself  be 


14  REVIEW  OF 

an  act  of  mercy,  and  in  no  sense  in  order  to  mercy, 
and  would  ipso  facto  release  the  sinner  from  con- 
demnation, just  as  B's  act  in  putting  the  amouut 
of  the  debt  to  A's  credit  releases  A  from  his  in- 
debtedness. 

3.  We  are  here  taught  that  "justice,  indeed,  is 
God  himself,  so  that  to  satisfy  it  is  to  satisfy  God 
himself."  This  is  a  scholastic  conceit,  founded 
upon  realism,  and  involves  numerous  absurdities: 

(1)  It  depersonalizes  the  deity  and  reduces  him 
to  an  impersonal  principle.     It  leads  inevitably  to 
fate  and  atheism. 

(2)  It  makes  justice  dominate  the  divine  will  in 
such  a  way  that  God  may  will  to  do  what  his  jus- 
tice forbids  his  doing.     Hence,  it  is  claimed  that 
God  can  not  show  mercy  without  first  satisfying 
justice,  to  do  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  itself  an 
act  of  mercy. 

(3)  Certainly  God  is  just,  but  he  is  never  called 
justice  in  the  Bible  or  anywhere  else  except  in  re- 
alistic philosophy.     But  he  is  called  Love.    Justice 
and  love  are  both  attributed  to  God.      If  justice 
imperatively  requires  the  punishment  of  sin,  then 
love  still  more  imperatively  requires  the  pardon  of 
sin.     Both  attributes  are  immutable,  and  reconcil- 
iation is  impossible;  for  justice  requires  satisfaction 
prior  to  any  act  of  love,    but  for  God  to  satisfy 
justice  is  itself  an  act  of  love.     This  clearly  dem- 
onstrates the  utter  absurdity  of  founding  the  neces- 
sity of  atonement  in  the  divine  attributes,  as  Anselm 
and  all  substitutionists  are  wont  to  do. 

Anselm  having  stated  what  he  conceived  to  be 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  15 

required  by  divine  justice,  proceeds  to  indicate  how 
these  requirements  are  met  by  the  God-Man.  He 
says: 

"There  are  two  ways  in  which  this  attribute 
(justice)  may  be  satisfied.  First,  the  punishment 
may  be  actually  inflicted  upon  the  transgressor. 
But  this  would  be  incompatible  with  his  salvation 
from  sin,  .  .  .  because  the  punishment  required  is 
eternal,  in  order  to  offset  the  infinite  demerit  of 
robbing  God  of  his  honor." 

Remarks. — i.  It  is  here  taught  that  punishment 
satisfies  justice,  or  the  law.  This  vital  error  will 
be  subsequently  fully  exposed.  It  is  sufficient  here 
to  suggest  that  if  punishment  satisfies  law  or  jus- 
tice, then  Satan  is  as  really  satisfying  law  as  are  the 
angels.  But  to  satisfy  law  is  to  be  free  from  con- 
demnation of  law — that  is,  to  bear  the  consequences 
of  not  loving  God,  as  the  law  requires,  is  to  satisfy 
the  law  and  be  free  from  condemnation.  This  phi- 
losophy exterminates  the  difference  between  obedi- 
ence and  disobedience,  and  hence  between  spiritual 
life  and  spiritual  death,  between  heaven  and  hell. 

2.  We  have  here  given  a  false  ground  of  the 
eternity  of  punishment.  The  punishment  of  sin 
is  alleged  to  be  eternal  because  it  is  infinitely  de- 
meritorious. This  can  not  be  so,  for  no  act  of  a 
finite  creature  can  be  either  infinitely  meritorious 
or  demeritorious,  because  this  would  be  exactly 
equal  to  saying  that  a  finite  being  is  capable  of  an 
infinite  obedience  or  infinite  disobedience,  which  is 
palpably  absurd.  Infinite  demerit,  then,  can  not  be 
the  ground  of  eternal  punishment.  Sin  and  its 


1 6  REVIEW  OF 

punishment  are  coterminous,  just  as  cause  and 
effect.  If  Satan  should  cease  to  hate,  and  come  to 
love  God,  he  would  necessarily  cease  to  bear  the 
penalty — that  is,  the  consequence  of  not  loving  God. 
Persistent  or  endless  disobedience  is  the  real  ground 
of  endless  punishment. 

3.  It  is  here  distinctly  taught  that  punishment 
"offsets  infinite  demerit."     This  logically  teaches 
that  Satan  is  as  truly  free  from  demerit  as  are  those 
that  have  never  sinned.      The  man  that  pays  his 
debts  as  he  makes  them  is  as  truly  out  of  debt  as 
he  that  never  makes  debts;  or  the  man  that  offsets 
his  demerit  by  any  means  is  as  free  from  demerit  as 
he  that  never  sinned. 

4.  Anselm  says:   "The   second   and  only  other 
way  in  which  the  attribute  of  justice  can  be  satis- 
fied is  by  substituted  or  vicarious  suffering. ' ' 

Remarks. — This  proposition  will  in  due  time  be 
sufficiently  considered.  I  wish  here  to  note  an  in- 
congruity inherent  in  all  substitutionary  schemes 
of  salvation,  viz. :  they  assume  as  the  basis  of  the 
scheme  that  "justice,  indeed,  is  God  himself,  so 
that  to  satisfy  it  is  to  satisfy  God  himself,"  and 
hence  that  justice  dominates  the  divine  will.  But 
in  order  to  make  room  for  substitution,  it  becomes 
necessary  to  reverse  this  position,  and  allow  the 
divine  will  to  dominate  divine  justice,  or  rather  to 
exterminate  it  from  the  divine  mind;  for  to  punish 
the  innocent  in  the  place  of  the  guilty  is  not  only 
an  act  of  will,  but  is  an  act  utterly  destructive  of 
every  principle  of  justice.  This  would  not  be  tol- 
erated by  any  human  government.  The  theory 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  17 

abounds  with  many  such  glaring  incongruities 
from  which  no  human  ingenuity  can  free  it,  some 
of  which  will  be  noted  in  their  proper  place. 

5.  Anselm  informs  us  that  no  mere  finite  being 
can  perform  the  office  of  substitute  for  sinners. 
This  is  certainly  true,  and  he  might  have  said,  No 
other  being  can  fill  such  an  office  in  the  sphere  of 
moral  or  divine  law.  He  says: 

"Only  God,  therefore,  can  make  this  satisfaction. 
Only  Deity  can  satisfy  the  claims  of  Deity.  But 
on  the  other  hand,  man  must  render  it;  otherwise 
it  would  not  be  a  satisfaction  for  man1  s  sin." 

Remarks. — This  is  sufficiently  profound,  but 
whether  true  is  another  matter.  God,  it  seems,  is 
in  a  strait.  He  has  been  robbed  of  his  honor  by 
the  "infinite  demerit  of  sin."  He  demands  that 
this  demerit  shall  be  "offset"  by  the  punishment 
of  a  substitute,  so  as  to  save  the  transgressor.  But 
no  finite  being  can  be  a  sufficient  substitute.  But 
God  alone  is  infinite.  He,  then,  alone  can  satisfy 
himself.  "Only  Deity  can.  satisfy  the  claims  of 
Deity." 

How  is  this?  If  I  owe  a  man  a  debt,  and  he  de- 
termines that  I  shall  not  pay  it,  but  that  some  other 
person  shall  pay  it,  but  can  find  no  other  person 
that  can  satisfy  it,  then  of  course  he  must  lose  the 
debt  or  pay  it  himself.  But  if  he  pays  it  to  him- 
self, or  satisfies  his  own  claims  against  me,  what  is 
that  but  forgiving  the  debt;  or  if  the  claim  can  be 
satisfied  only  by  the  infliction  of  penal  suffering 
upon  the  substitute,  then  he  must  punish  himself. 


i8  REVIEW  OF 

Can  God  inflict  penal  wrath  upon  himself?  If 
punishment  alone  can  satisfy  the  claim,  and  only 
Deity  can  satisfy  the  claims  of  Deity,  then  it  fol- 
lows that  God  must  satisfy  the  claim  against  me  by 
inflicting  the  punishment  upon  himself. 

6.  But  while  God  makes  the  satisfaction  he  must 
make  it  through  a  man.  He  says:  "But  on  the 
other  hand  man  must  render  it,  otherwise  it  would 
not  be  a  satisfaction  for  man's  sin." 

Remarks. — This  is  certainly  very  deep  or  dark, 
or  both.  One  point  of  difficulty  is  to  know  the 
precise  difference  between  making  satisfaction  for 
sin  and  rendering  satisfaction  for  sin.  A  difference 
is  evidently  intended,  but  usage,  I  think,  does  not 
recognize  it.  We  are  left  to  conjecture  as  to  what 
it  is.  God  makes  the  satisfaction,  and  man  renders 
the  satisfaction.  But  the  satisfaction  can  be  made 
only  by  suffering  the  full  penalty  of  the  law,  which 
is  "eternal  death."  But  this  same  satisfaction  is 
rendered  by  man.  Deity  makes  the  satisfaction — 
suffers  eternal  death — to  satisfy  the  Deity,  and  man 
renders  the  satisfaction — eternal  death  —  for  the 
same  purpose.  Who  then  suffers  eternal  death,  in 
which  the  satisfaction  consists?  Is  it  God,  or  man, 
or  both  ?  This  to  an  ordinary  common-sense  man 
seems  a  real  difficulty.  But  the  astute  author 
escapest  or  thinks  he  escapes,  by  the  aid  of  his 
realistic  philosophy.  He  does  not  mean  that  God 
as  God  suffered  eternal  death,  for  this  would  in- 
volve consequences  too  shocking  to  be  admitted. 
Nor  does  he  mean  that  man  as  man  endured  eternal 
death  as  a  substitute  for  men.  But  he  means  that 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  19 

the  God-Man,  as  a  theanthropic  person,  suffered  the 
equivalent  of  this  eternal  death.     He  continues: 

"Consequently,  the  required  and  adequate  satis- 
faction must  be  theanthropic — that  is,  rendered  by  a 
God-Man— as  God,  the  God-Man,  can  give  to  Deity 
more  than  the  whole  finite  creation  combined  could 
render.  Furthermore,  this  theanthropic  obedience 
and  suffering  was  not  due  from  the  mere  numaiiity 
of  Christ.  This  was  sinless  and  innocent,  and 
justice  had  no  claims,  in  the  way  of  suffering, 
upon  it.  And,  moreover,  only  a  man's  obedience, 
and  not  that  of  a  God-Man,  could  be  required  of  a 
man.  Consequently  the  divine-human  obedience 
and  suffering  was  a  surplusage  in  respect  to  the 
man  Christ  Jesus,  and  might  overflow  and  inure  to 
the  benefit  of  a  third  party  " — the  elect  world. 

Remarks. — i.  The  doctrine  is  that  God,  apart 
from  humanity,  did  not  and  could  not,  as  a  sub- 
stitute, obey  the  law  and  suffer  its  penalty  in  the 
place  of  man.  This  is  certainly  true. 

2.  That   Christ,   as   man,   apart  from   divinity, 
could  and  did  obey  the  law  preceptively  for  himself; 
that,  being  sinless,  he  was  not  required  to  bear  any 
penalty  on  his  own  account;  nor  was  it  possible  for 
him  as  a  man  to  obey  the  law  and  suffer  its  penal- 
ties in  the  place  of  others.     This  is  certainly  true. 

3.  That  God,  as  the  God-Man,  "can  (and  did) 
render  to  deity  more  than  the  whole  finite  creation 
combined  could  render" — that  is,  that  the  God-Man 
could  render  more  obedience,  and  at  the  same  time 
endure  more  penal  suffering  than  all  finite  creatures 
combined. 

A  purely  divine  person  could  not  do  this.     A 


2o  REVIEW  OF 

purely  human  person  could  not  do  this,  but  a  God- 
Man,  a  theanthropic  person  could,  and  actually  did 
this  wonderful  thing. 

Perhaps  we  should  never  cease  to  admire  the 
ingeniousness  of  this  conceit;  and  if  it  was  any 
thing  more  than  a  conceit,  we  should  never  cease  to 
be  grateful  to  its  author  for  so  wonderful  a  revela- 
tion. 

But  when  we  expel  the  realism  upon  which  it 
rests,  the  pretty  vision  vanishes  into  thin  air. 

The  illusion  is  in  this  "God-Man,"  "this  thean- 
thropic obedience  and  suffering,"  "this  Divine- 
Human  obedience  and  suffering." 

Christ  possesses  both  a  divine  and  human  nature. 
This  fact  is  expressed  by  the  use  of  these  composite 
terms.  The  terms  themselves  "are  mere  names  or 
symbols  of  things,  and  not  themselves  substantial 
entities.  But  Anselm  invests  them  with  attributes 
of  substantial  entitiveness,  and  attributes  to  the 
God-Man  qualities  and  powers  not  proper  to  either 
a  purely  divine  or  human  being — e.  g. ,  the  power 
of  rendering  "to  the  Deity  more  than  the  whole 
finite  creation  combined  could  render. "  This  pure 
divinity  could  not  do;  this  pure  humanity  could  not 
do.  But  the  God-Man,  the  human  and§  the  divine 
in  combination,  it  is  assumed,  could  do  this  marvelous 
thing. 

If  it  could  be  proved  that  the  God-Man  could  do 
this,  it  would  not  prove  the  substitutionary  theory 
to  be  true;  for  other  insuperable  difficulties  array 
themselves  against  it.  But  if  substitutionists  can 
not  prove  the  doctrine  of  realism,  or  that  names  or 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  21 

word-symbols  have  the  powers  of  substantive  entities, 
then  the  whole  substitutionary  scheme  of  salvation 
dissolves  into  dust. 

t  Having  discussed  this  doctrine  at  some  length  in 
"A tenement  and  Law  Reviewed,"  and  as  I  shall 
have  occasion  to  refer  to  it  subsequently,  I  shall  sayx 
only  enough  here  to  show  the  reader  the  impossibil- 
ity of  the  God-Man's  rendering  any  such  obedience 
and  enduring  any  such  suffering  as  are  ascribed  to 
him. 

1.  We  call  Christ  a  theandric  person.     But  this 
does  not  imply  that  he  did  or  could  perform  any  the- 
andric acts,  or  any  acts  neither  strictly  divine  nor 
human,    but  something  essentially   different   from 
both.     His  divine  and  his  human  nature  were  not 
amalgamated,  forming  a  tertium  quid  and  of"  course 
his  acts,    none  of  them,  were  amalgamated  acts, 
comprising  a  human  and  a  divine  element.     On  the 
contrary,  his  every  act  was  either  purely  human  or 
purely  divine. 

Man  has  a  body  and  a  mind,  but  all  his  sufferings 
are  purely  physical  or  mental — they  are  not  amal- 
gamated sufferings,  but  all  have  their  source  either 
in  the  body  or  in  the  mind,  not  equally  in  both. 
They  deeply  sympathize  with  each  other.  But  this 
they  could  not  do  if  the  suffering  had  its  source 
equally  in  both.  The  application  is  easy  enough, 
and  you  can  make  it  for  yourselves. 

2.  Even  if  theanthropic   "obedience  and. suffer- 
ing" were  possible,  it  brings  no  relief.     Because 
just  so  far  as  the  God-nature  participates  in  the 
obedience  and  suffering,  just  so  far  does  God, -as  a 


22  REVIEW  OF 

substitute  for  men,  obey  the  requirements  and  suffer 
the  penalties  of  his  own  law,  or  render  obedience 
to  himself  and  at  the  same  time  pour  his  wrath  and 
righteous  indignation  upon  himself.  This  is  too 
plain  to  require  a  word  of  explanation. 

3.  If  it  should  be  admitted  that  Christ,  as  a  the- 
andric  personality  had  omnipotent  power,  still  it  is 
true  that  the  terms  of  the  law  which  he  obeyed 
exclude  the  possibility  of  his  rendering  any  substi- 
tutionary  obedience,  either  preceptivelv  or  penally. 
For  the  law  explicitly  requires  obedience  according 
to  ability.  ' '  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God 
with  all  thy  heart,  soul,  mind,  and  strength. ' '  Of 
course  Christ  as  a  man  could  do  this  only  for  himself. 
If  we  say  that  he  as  a  theandric  person  rendered  an 
obedience  which  neither  the  divine  nor  the  human 
nature  could  separately  render,  then  we  require  him 
as  a  man  to  love  God  with  more  than  all  his  ability. 
To  require  him  to  love  with  all  his  ability  on  his 
own  account,  and  at  the  same  time  to  love  in  the 
place  of  millions  of  others,  would  be  to  require  an 
impossibility.  Hence,  it  is  so  plain  as  scarcely  to 
require  saying,  that  if  the  God-Man  obeyed  the 
law  and  endured  its  penalties  in  the  place  of  men, 
then  that  obedience  was  rendered  exclusively  by 
his  divinity,  and  in  no  part  by  his  humanity.  This 
no  man,  not  even  the  most  inveterate  realist,  would 
be  willing  to  admit. 

It  is  .said  that  the  "Divine-Human  obedience  and 
suffering  was  a  surplusage  in  respect  to  the  man 
Christ  Jesus,  and  might  overflow  and  inure  to  the 
benefit  of  a  third  party." 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  23 

This  assumes  that  the  God-Man  was  capable  of 
rendering  to  God  more  love  [love  is  the  fulfilling 
of  the  law]  than  the  law  required.  But  we  have 
just  seen  that  the  terms  of  the  law  exclude  the  pos- 
sibility of  any  supererogatory  obedience.  Conse- 
quently there  is  absolutely  no  surplusage  of  "obe- 
dience and  suffering  to  overflow  and  inure  to  the 
benefit  of  a  third  party" — unless,  indeed,' it  comes 
from  the  God  side  of  the  God-Man.  But  this  is 
equivalent,  as  we  have  seen,  to  pardoning  sin  with- 
out any  atonement  at  all. 

These  statements  I  have  thought  proper  to  make 
in  regard  to  the  fundamental  principles  upon  which 
Anselm,  with  marvelous  ingenuity,  rears  his  colos- 
sal scheme  of  soteriology.  The  merits  of  the  the- 
ory as  modified  and  supported  by  his  admirers  will 
be  considered  in  subsequent  discussions. 


24  REVIEW  OF 


CHAPTER  II. 

SOTERIOLOGY  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS. 

It  is  generally  admitted  that  the  Christian  writers 
who  immediately  succeeded  the  apostles  give  no 
clear  intimations  that  they  believed  that  Christ 
saves  men  by  a  penal  death.  They  distinctly 
recognize  him  as  the  Savior  of  men.  They  speak 
of  his  sufferings,  his  death,  his  righteousness,  etc. 
But  no  one  claims  that  they  teach  with  any  pre- 
cision that  Christ  suffered  the  punishment  of  sin 
in  the  place  of  those  for  whom  he  died.  Yet  it  is 
persistently  claimed  that  this  doctrine  was  held  by 
them.  I  will  here  cite  the  principal  passages  in 
their  writings  that  are  relied  upon  in  support  of 
this  claim.  These  I  take  from  the  "History  of 
Christian  Doctrine,"  by  W.  G.  T.  Shedd,  D.D., 
Vol.  II. ,  p.  208,  et  seq. ,  to  which  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred. 

i.   Polycarp,  a  pupil  of  John,  says: 

"  Christ  is  our  Savior;  for  through  grace  are  we 
righteous,  not  by  works;  for  our  sins  he  has  even 
taken  death  upon  himself,  has  become  the  servant 
of  us  all,  and  through  death  for  us  our  hope,  and 
the  pledge  of  our  righteousness.  The  heaviest  sin 
is  unbelief  in  Christ;  his  blood  will  be  demanded 
of  unbelievers;  for  to  those  to  whom  the  death  of 
Christ,  zvhich  obtains  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  does  not 
prove  a  ground  of  justification,  it  proves  a  ground 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  25 

of  condemnation Our   Lord    Jesus    Christ 

suffered  himself  to  be  brought  to  death  for  our 
sins;  let  us  therefore  without  ceasing  hold  stead- 
fastly to  him  who  is  our  hope,  and  the  earnest  of 
our  righteousness,  even  Jesus  Christ,  'who  bare 
our  sins  in  his  own  body  .on  the  tree.' ' 

This  seems  to  be  the  sum  total  of  the  proof  that 
Polycarp  believed  that  Christ  as  a  substitute  died 
in  the  place  of  men  in  such  a  sense  as  to  bear  their 
guilt  and  punishment  and  infallibly  insure  to  them 
eternal  life.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  there 
is  not  a  solitary  word  in  the  whole  quotation  that 
teaches  or  even  implies  the  doctrine. 

Still  it  is  easy  to  see  how  substitutionists  deceive 
themselves  by  such  passages,  viz. :  if  it  is  said  that 
"Christ  died  for  us,"  they  assume  that  he  died 
penally  in  our  stead.  They  thus  beg  the  whole 
question  by  gratuitously  assuming  to  be  true  what 
they  are  required  to  prove  to  be  true. 

The  language  of  this  apostolic  father,  if  inter- 
preted in  the  light  of  its  own  terms,  can  not  be 
reconciled  with  the  substitutionary  scheme.  If  the 
theory  is  true,  how  could  Christ  ' '  become  the  serv- 
ant of  all  ?  "  or  "  the  hope  and  pledge  of  righteous- 
ness to  all  ?  "  or  how  could  his  blood  be  demanded 
of  unbelievers,  since  all  for  whom  his  blood  was 
shed  necessarily  believe?  or  how  can  his  blood  be 
demanded  of  those  for  whom  it  was  not  shed?  or 
how  could  his  death  be  a  ground  of  condemnation 
to  those  for  whom  he  did  not  die  ? 

Much  more  might  be  said,  but  need  not.  All 
Polycarp  says  is  in  harmony  with  a  non-penal  the- 


26  REVIEW  OF 

ory,  but  can  not  be  reconciled  with  the  penal 
scheme.  [How  Christ  bore  sin  will  be  explained 
in  due  time.] 

2.  The  next  witness   called   is   Ignatius  (tn6). 
Dr.  Shedd  says: 

"The  expiatory  agency  of  Christ  is  explicitly 
recognized  by  Ignatius.  In  one  passage  he  speaks 
of  Christ  as  the  One  who  gave  himself  to  God,  ^an 
offering  and  sacrifice  for  us. '  In  another  place  he 
bids  believers  to  stir  themselves  up  to  duty  ''by  the 
blood  of  God.'  In  another  place  he  remarks  that 
'  if  God  had  dealt  with  us  according  to  our  works 
we  should  not  now  have  had  a  being;'  but  that 
now,  under  the  gospel,  we  'have  peace  through  the 
flesh  and  blood  and  passion  of  Jesus  Christ. '  ' 

These  quotations  instead  of  proving  penality 
actually  disprove  it.  Offering  and  sacrifice  are  in- 
compatible with  penality.  I  need  not  offer  another 
word.  They  can  claim  pertinency  to  the  issue 
only  on  the  assumption  that  Christ  could  not  suffer 
for  us  unless  he  suffered  in  our  stead  —  the  very 
point  which  requires  proof. 

3.  The  next  witness  quoted  is  Barnabas,  com- 
panion of  Paul.     He  says: 

"The  Lord  endured  to  deliver  his  body  to  death 
that  we  might  be  sanctified  by  the  remission  of  sins 
which  is  by  the  shedding  of  that  blood. ' ' 

This  is  every  way  as  favorable  to  non-penality  as 
to  penality. 

4.  Clement  of  Rome,  a  disciple  of  Paul,  is  next 
invoked  in  the  interest  of  substitution.     His  lan- 
guage is: 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  27 

"His  (Christ's)  blood  was  given  for  us,  poured 
out  for  our  salvation;  he  gave  by  the  will  of  God 
his  body  for  our  body,  his  soul  for  our  soul." 

It  is  pure  assumption  to  say  that  "for"  is  here 
intended  for  ' '  instead  of. ' '  This  will  be  elsewhere 
more  fully  considered.  That  Clement  did  not  hold 
the  penal  theory  is  fairly  evinced  by  the  fact  that 
he  has  much  to  say  of  Christ  as  a  "high-priest." 
No  high-priest,-  or  any  other  priests,  Jewish  or  pa- 
gan, ever  bore  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  those  V 
for  whom  they  ministered.  Substitution  requires 
no  priest.  As  a  theory  an  executioner  is  all  it 
needs.  This  will  subsequently  be  seen. 


28  REVIEW  OF 


CHAPTER  III. 

SOTERIOLOGY  OF  THE  PATRISTS. 

In  this  period  of  the  history  of  the  church  the 
claims  of  Satan  were  extensively  recognized. 

If  sin  is  a  debt,  and  Christ  paid  the  debt,  to 
whom  did  he  pay  it?  This  question  divided  the- 
ologians for  near  a  thousand  years.  The  most  in- 
fluential writers  insisted  that  Satan,  in  seducing 
the  progenitors  of  mankind,  acquired  a  valid  right 
to  their  services;  and  that  Christ,  in  order  to  save 
men,  must  satisfy  this  satanic  claim:  otherwise  z«- 
justice  would  be  done  to  Satan. 

SECTION  I. — Irenaeus,  in  his  book  against  her- 
esies, says: 

"The  word  of  God  [the  Logos\,  omnipotent  and 
not  wanting  in  essential  justice,  proceeded  with 
strict  justice  even  against  the  apostasy  or  king- 
dom of  evil  itself  \apostasiam\,  redeeming  from  it 
\_ab  ed\  that  which  was  his  own  originally,  not  by 
using  violence,  as  did  the  devil  in  the  beginning, 
but  by  persuasion  [secundum  suadelam\,  as  it  be- 
came God,  so  that  neither  justice  should  be  in- 
fringed upon,  nor  the  original  creation  of  God 
perish. ' ' 

Here  we  have  a  distinct  recognition  of  the  rights 
of  Satan,  which  justice  required  should  be  in  some 
way  satisfied. 

Irenseus  says  not  one  word  about  Christ's  satisfy- 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  29 

ing  the  justice  of  God  for  men,  or  redeeming  men 
from  its  claims,  but  from  the  kingdom  of  evil  only. 
But  Anselm  utterly  rejects  the  claims  of  Satan.  It 
is  therefore  the  extremest  folly  to  attempt  to  harmo- 
nize the  views  of  these  two  writers;  for  this  can  be 
done  only  by  maintaining  that  Christ  died  to  sat- 
isfy the  just  claims  both  of  God  and  Satan. 

Yet  it  is  claimed  that  there  is  no  contradic- 
tion. This  claim  is  based  on  the  following  quota- 
tion from  Irenaeus'  Epistle  to  Diognetus: 

uGod  himself  gave  up  his  Son  a  ransom  for  us 
\huper  hemon\,  the  holy  for  the  unholy,  the  good 
for  the  evil,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  the  incorrupti- 
ble for  the  corruptible,  the  immortal  for  the  mortal. 
For  what  else  could  cover  our  sins  but  his  right- 
eousness? In  whom  was  it  possible  for  us,  the  un- 
holy and  the  ungodly,  to  be  justified,  except  the 
Son  of  God  alone  ?  O  sweet  exchange  !  O  won- 
derful operation  !  O  unlocked  for  benefit !  that  the 
sinfulness  of  many  should  be  hidden  in  one,  that 
the  righteousness  of  one  should  justify  many  un- 
godly. ' ' 

On  this  extract  I  remark:  (i)  That  it  of  itself 
teaches  nothing  distinctively  as  to  the  nature  of 
Christ's  sufferings,  whether  they  satisfied  the  claims 
of  God  or  Satan.  If  Irenaeus  was  consistent  with 
himself  he  meant  the  latter. 

(2)  What  it  does  teach  is  that  men  are  saved  by 
Christ's  righteousness,  acquired  by 'satisfying  the 
claims  of  Satan  to  whom  he  believed  men  owed 
some  sort  of  allegiance,  just  as  a  man  imprisoned 
for  debt  is  saved  by  the  kindness  of  a  friend  who 
pays  the  debt.  Much  more  might  be  said  in  proof 


30  REVIEW  OF 

of  this  position.  But  this  is  not  Anselmic  substi- 
tution, with  its  invariable  double  imputation. 

SECTION  II. — It  is  well  known  that  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  and  Origen,  Basilides,  and  Valentinus 
held  views  in  direct  conflict  with  the  substitution- 
ary  and  penal  scheme  of  salvation.  They  did  not 
regard  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  penal  satisfaction  to 
divine  justice.  If  this  doctrine  is  the  great  central 
doctrine  of  Christianity,  and  was  taught  by  Christ, 
the  apostles,  and  the  apostolic  fathers,  it  is  marvel- 
ous that  the  most  learned  and  pious  men  of  that 
early  period  should  hold  opinions  in  utter  conflict 
with  it.  That  such  men  might  err  on  minor  and 
speculative  doctrines  is  fairly  presumable;  but  that 
they  should  teach  doctrines  contrary  to  the  central 
truth  of  Christianity,  which  correlates  all  other 
Christian  doctrines  to  itself,  and  yet  be  recog- 
nized as  lights  and  leaders  in  the  Christian  world, 
is  in  itself  incredible.  The  fact  that  they  do  not 
recognize  the  doctrine  of  penal  satisfaction  in  any 
form  as  true  or  false  is  sufficient  proof  that  it  had 
no  existence  in  their  day. 

•  SECTION  III. — Athanasius  (373)  is  quoted  in  sup- 
port of  the  substitutionary  theory.  He  acknowl- 
edges the  claims  of  Satan,  but  "has  less  to  say"  of 
these  claims  "than  his  predecessors."  Still,  it  is 
insisted  that  he  also  recognized  the  claims  of  divine 
justice  in  contradistinction  to  those  of  Satan.  If 
this  is  so,  then  Christ  had  a  double  work  to  per- 
form: to  satisfy  justice  as  a  divine  attribute,  and  to 
satisfy  the  "just"  claims  of  Satan.  How  could  he 
do  this?  He  died  but  once.  How  could  that 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  31 

Single  death  be  so  disposed  of  as  to  satisfy  these 
adverse  claims?  Are  we  at  liberty,  without  the 
most  absolute  proof,  to  attribute  to  this  most  astute 
author  such  palpable  absurdity?  Such  proof  does 
not  exist.  In  vindication  of  Athanasius'  consist- 
ency, I  suggest  that  he  believed,  in  common  with 
others,  that  Satan,  by  conquest,  had  acquired  a 
property  right  in  men;  and  that  Christ,  by  his  suf- 
ferings, had  satisfied  this  just  claim,  and  thus. re- 
deemed men;  just  as  captives  taken  in  combat  were 
redeemed  by  the  payment  of  a  ransom. 

All  that  Athanasius  says  on  the  subject  can,  I 
think,  be  more  easily  reconciled  with  this  view 
than  with  the  notion  that  Christ  suffered  penally  to 
satisfy  the  claims  both  of  Satan  and  of  God.  For 
it  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  show  that  a  number 
of  his  expressions  can  not  be  harmonized  with  the 
Anselmic  theory  at  all. 

SECTION  IV. — Augustine  (430),  it  is  well  known, 
directed  his  attention  principally  to  anthropology. 
He  accepted  the  soteriology  current  in  his  time. 
He  consequently  unhesitatingly  allows  the  claims 
of  Satan.  In  his  work,  ' '  De  libero  arbitrio, ' '  he 
says: 

"God  the  Son  being  clothed  with  humanity  sub- 
jugated even  the  devil  to  man,  extorting  nothing 
from  him  by  violence,  but  overcoming  him  by  the 
law  of  justice;  for  it  would  have  been  injustice  if 
the  devil  had  not  had  the  right  to  rule  over  the 
being  whom  he  had  taken  captive. ' ' 

Here  we  have  a  distinct  avowal  of  the  legal  rights 
of  Satan  in  men,  and  also  the  origin  of  those  rights 


32  REVIEW  OF 

— capture.  According  to  the  custom  of  the  times 
a  man  captured  belonged  to  the  captor,  and  a 
stipulated  price  paid  to  the  captor  released,  re- 
deemed, the  captive.  This  was  exactly  Augustine's 
conception  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  Satan  captured 
Adam  and  Eve.  This  gave  him  a  just  right  to  them 
and  their  posterity.  Christ  rendered  to  Satan  a 
just  equivalent,  and  thus  released  them,  or  a  part 
of  them,  from  bondage  to  Satan,  and  this  liberation 
from  Satan  was  a  full  release  from  all  legal  liabili- 
ties to  punishment.  To  require  a  ransom  to  be 
paid  for  one  captured  into  slavery  to  the  captor, 
and  another  ransom  to  be  paid  to  the  party  from 
which  he  was  captured  would  be  an  unprecedented 
procedure.  It  is  simply  incredible  that  the  astute 
minds  of  Athanasius  and  Augustine  should  advo- 
cate any  such  absurd  things. 

They  were  evidently  misled  by  the  false  assump- 
tion that  the  divine  government  is  analogous  to  hu- 
man governments  in  regard  to  the  law  of  right. 
Knowing  that  Christ  does  ransom  men  from  con- 
demnation, they  concluded  that  he  ransoms  them 
by  penal  suffering,  rendered  to  satisfy  the  claims  of 
Satan.  As  the  absurdity  of  this  view  of  soteriology 
becomes  more  apparent  as  the  centuries  pass  away, 
many  of  the  leading  minds  sought  to  replace  the 
claims  of  Satan  with  the  claims  of  abstract  justice. 
Hence,  the  Anselmic  scheme.  That  Augustine 
himself  held  views  utterly  antagonistic  to  those  of 
Anselm  is  apparent  from  the  following  facts: 

i.  He  expressly  denies  any  absolute  necessity  for 
atonement  at  all,  and  asserts  only  a  relative  necessi- 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  33 

ty.  In  this  he  posits  the  atonement  in  the  divine 
will,  and  not  in  divine  justice.  In  this  he  and  An- 
selm  are  in  point-blank  conflict. 

2.  He  blends  justification  and  sanctifieation,  or 
supplements  the  righteousness  of  Christ  with  the 
personal  righteousness  of  the  individual.     In  this 
he  is  contradicted  by  Anselm,  and  very  properly, 
too. 

3.  Augustine  boldly  asserts  the  rights  of  Satan, 
which  Anselm  rightly  rejects  in  toto. 

4.  Augustine   teaches   a  general   atonement,    or 
that  Christ  died  for  all  men.     This  is  contradicted 
by  the  Anselmic  theory,  which  can  avoid  universal- 
ism  only  by  denying  general  atonement. 

A  few  facts  may  be  pertinently  stated  in  connec- 
tion with  the  preceding  discussion: 

1.  The  Apostolic   Fathers — the  immediate  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles — presented  the  plan  of  sal- 
vation mostly  in  the  language  of  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures— that  is,  they  preached  a  crucified  and  risen 
Christ  as  the  Savior  of  all  men,  especially  of  them 
that  believe.     They  say  nothing  of  the  claims  of 
Satan,  or  of  satisfying  abstract  justice.     They  make 
Christ  himself  the  Savior  of  men. 

2.  Their  simple,  matter-of-fact  soteriology  was 
superseded  by  wild  speculations,   founded   upon  a 
few  misapprehended  Bible  texts,  such   as   Col.  ii. 
15;  Heb.  ii.   14,  concerning  Satan  and   the   king- 
dom of  evil.     The  result  was  that  the  claims  of 
Satan  were  largely  recognized,  and  Christ's  death 
acknowledged  as  a  satisfaction  of  these  claims,  and 
so  general  and  so  deeply  rooted  were  these  convic- 

3 


34  REVIEW  OF 

tions  that  it  required  near  a  thousand  years  for  the 
church  to  free  itself  from  the  obnoxious  figment. 

3.  The  astute  and  pious  Anselm,  impressed  with 
the  fallacy  of  the  rights  of  Satan,  and  perceiving  the 
evil  tendency  of  supplementing  the  merits  of  Christ 
with  human  merit,  as  the  ground  of  salvation,  put 
forth  his  wonderful  power  to  free  Christianity  from 
these    grievous    incumbrances.       Had   his   success 
equaled  his  abilities,  he  would  have  achieved  won- 
ders for  the  Christian  world.     Unfortunately,  how- 
ever, he  was  thoroughly  permeated  with  the  realis- 
tic philosophy,  and  lived  in  an  age  when  scholars 
dealt  with  fancies  as  facts,  and  abstractions  as  real- 
ities.    The  result  is  a  scheme  of  soteriology,  re- 
markable for  its   ingenuity,  but   the  outcome   of 
which  is  that  Christ  died  to  enable  God  to  show 
mercy  to  sinful  men,  the  fallacy  of  which  has  pre- 
viously been  indicated. 

4.  It  seems  worthy  of  mention  that  this  wonder- 
ful man  constructs  his  soteriology  of  realistic  ma- 
terial furnished  by  his  own  fertile  brain,  and  wholly 
independent  of  the  Bible.     The  Bible  never  author- 
ized him  to  say  that  "justice,  indeed,  is  God  him- 
self, so  that  to  satisfy  it  is  to  satisfy  God  himself" — 
never  authorized  him  to  say  that  Christ  died  to  sat- 
isfy justice.     These  conceits  are  the  products  of  his 
own  inventive  genius. 


CELRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  35 


CHAPTER  IV. 

SECTION  I. — Conflicting  Theories  oj  Soteriology. 

The  Apostolic  Fathers,  like  the  apostles  them- 
selves, it  is  generally  said,  had  no  formulated 
scheme  of  soteriology.  It  is  certainly  true  that 
they  had  no  scheme  of  salvation  apart  from  a  liv- 
ing Christ. 

They  indulged  in  no  inane  speculation  concern- 
ing the  relation  of  Christ's  mission  to  divine  jus- 
tice, or  as  to  what  effects  it  had  upon  God,  or  upon 
the  divine  government,  or  upon  the  moral  and  legal 
states  of  men.  They  did  not  teach  that  Christ's 
beautiful  example,  or  his  wise  precepts,  or  his  mar- 
velous self-denial,  or  his  sufferings,  or  his  death, 
or  his  resurrection,  however  valuable  these  things 
may  be,  ever  saved  any  body  or  assured  salvation 
to  any  one. 

On  the  contrary,  they  taught  that  Christ  himself 
— not  his  precepts,  not  his  death,  not  his  resurrec- 
tion— but  the  crucified,  but  risen  Christ  saves  men 
by  making  them  partaker's  of  his  own  spiritual 
life.  They  preached  him  as  "the  light  of  the 
world,"  as  "the  true  light  that  lighteth  every 
man,"  as  "the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  light,"  as 
"the  resurrection  and  the  life,"  who  is  himself  the 
"propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world," 
"the  Savior  of  all  men,  especially  of  them  that  be- 


36  REVIEW  OF 

lieve,"  who  "came into  the  world  to  save  sinners, 
even  the  chief. ' ' 

They  preached  facts,  not  figments,  and  their  the- 
ory, their  philosophy  of  salvation,  was  in  their 
facts.  They  preached  a  living  Christ,  who  came 
to  save  the  world  by  taking  away  the  sins  of  indi- 
viduals, as  he  took  away  the  maladies  of  those  that 
came  to  him  when  he  was  visible  to  human  eyes. 
They  preached  a  living  Christ,  a  quickening  spirit, 
who  though  invisible  is  as  truly  present  in  this 
world  as  he  was  before  his  ascension,  and  raising 
up  men  to  spiritual  life  by  the  same  power  with 
which  he  raised  Lazarus  from  the  dead. 

This  was  the  gospel  in  its  simplicity  and  in  its 
power — God  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  unto 
himself. 

SECTION  II. — Dissensions  Arise. 

Within  two  centuries  the  gospel  had  attracted  to 
the  church  men  of  all  shades  of  philosophy  and  re- 
ligion, all  classes  seeking  to  modify  the  new  re- 
ligion by  their  peculiar  faith.  Speculation  was  rife 
and  wild.  Error  came  in  like  a  flood.  The  simplic- 
ity and  spirituality  of  the  gospel  gave  way  to  forms 
and  ritual  observances.  Sacraments  and  ordinances 
were  substituted  for  the  living  Christ.  To  his  suf- 
fering or  death  was  attributed  a  power  which  be- 
longed only  to  himself  as  the  living  and  life-giving 
spirit.  His  sufferings,  it  was  imagined,  offset  the 
sufferings  which  were  due  to  men's  sins,  because 
of  their  subjection  to  the  prince  of  evil.  This  view 
was  boldly  maintained  by  the  leading  minds  of  the 
church,  such  as  Irenseus,  Athanasius,  Augustine, 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  37 

and  man}-  others;  while  others,  such  as  Gregory  the 
Great  and  others,  denied  the  claims  of  Satan,  and 
held  that  Christ  suffered  penally  to  satisfy  the 
claims  of  punitive  justice,  imminent  in  the  divine 
nature  and  dominative  of  the  divine  will. 

This  conflict  lasted  about  a  thousand  years,  dur- 
ing the  first  part  of  which  the  claims  of  Satan  were 
greatly  in  the  ascendancy,  and  during  the  latter 
part  the  claims  of  justice  held  the  supremacy.  The 
conceit  that  Satan  had  property  rights  in  all  hu- 
manity, which  must  be  equitably  met  before  men 
could  be  rightfully  freed  from  sin,  was  the  original 
form  of  the  doctrine  of  penal  substitution,  I  have 
not  a  doubt.  This  view  gradually  merged  itself, 
during  the  course  of  centuries,  into  the  conceit  that 
Christ  died  to  satisfy  divine  justice.  This,  I  think, 
was  not  a  triumph  of  truth  over  error,  but  the  tri- 
umph of  one  error  over  another.  The  one  unduly 
exalts  Satan,  the  other  absolutely  depersonalizes 
the  Deity. 

SECTION  III. — Anselm  boldly  and  rightfully  re- 
jected the  claims  of  Satan,  and  boldly  and  wrong- 
fully asserted  the  claims  of  abstract  justice,  assum- 
ing that  "Justice,  indeed,  is  God  himself,  so  that 
to  satisfy  it  is  to  satisfy  God  himself. ' ' 

His  scheme,  however,  met  with  only  partial  fa- 
vor, some  accepting  it  fully,  others  with  material 
modifications,  and  others  rejecting  it  outright. 

i.  Abelard. — This  acute  schoolman  rejected  in 
toto  the  scheme  of  Anselm,  except  as  to  the  claims 
of  Satan.  His  view  of  the  subject  is  succinctly 


38  REVIEW  OF 

given  in  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  Vol.  IT.,  p. 
287,  and  is  as  follows: 

4 '  The  Deity  can  pardon  upon  repentance.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  divine  nature  which  necessitates 
a  satisfaction  for  past  transgressions,  antecedently 
to  remission  of  penalty.  Like  creating  out  of  noth- 
ing, redemption  may  and  does  take  place  by  fiat,  by 
which  sin  is  abolished  by  a  word  and  the  sinner  is 
received  into  favor.  Nothing  is  needed  but  peni- 
tence in  order  to  remission  of  sin.  The  object  of 
the  incarnation  and  death  of  Christ,  consequently, 
is  to  produce  sorrow  in  the  human  soul.  The  life 
and  sufferings  of  the  God-Man  were  intended  to  ex- 
ert a  moral  impression  upon  the  hard  and  impeni- 
tent heart,  which  is  thereby  melted  into  contrition 
and  then  received  into  favor  by  the  boundless  com- 
passion of  God." 

It  is  sufficient  here  to  say  that  this  scheme  is  in- 
sufficient as  a  plan  of  salvation.  It  makes  no  pro- 
vision for  a  change  of  man's  spiritual  nature,  ex- 
cept such  as  may  be  produced  by  his  mental  acts. 
It  is,  in  fact,  a  plan  of  salvation  by  works  under  fa- 
vorable circumstances. 

2.  Lombard  (1164)  rejected  Anselm's  theory  and 
accepted  that  of  Abelard  in  its  fundamental  princi- 
ples. He  admits,  however,  that  the  claims  of  jus- 
tice are  met  to  a  limited  extent  by  the  sufferings  of 
the  Redeemer.  "They  deliver  man  from  the  tem- 
Poral  penal  consequences  of  sin,  provided  baptism 
be  administered  and  penance  be  performed. ' ' 

These  statements  show  an  utter  misapprehension 
of  the  gospel  plan  of  salvation,  both  on  its  divine 
and  its  human  side.  It  restricts  the  merits  of  Christ 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  39 

to  the  temporal  consequences  of  sin;  and  yet  sup- 
plements these  merits  with  human  works.  A  sin- 
ner saved  by  this  plan,  I  should  think,  could  never 
know  to  whom  he  should  return  thanks — whether 
to  Christ  or  himself. 

3.  Bernard    of  Clairvaux  (1153),    condemns  the 
soteriology  of  Abelard,  asserts  the  claims  of  Satan, 
which  he  holds  were  met  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
and  of  course  disagrees  with  Anselm  in  this  respect; 
he  agrees  with  Augustine  in  denying  an  absolute, 
and  in  asserting  only  a  relative,  necessity  for  atone- 
ment.    In  this,  too,  he  is  in  conflict  with  Anselm. 

4.  Hugo  St.  Victor  (1140),  Dr.  Shedd  says: 

"Approaches  somewhat  nearer  in  technical  re- 
spects to  ...  Anselm  than  did  .  .  .  Bernard. 
While  unwilling  to  give  up  the  old  patristic  no- 
tion of  a  satisfaction  of  Satan's  claims,  he  is  dis- 
tinct in  asserting  and  exhibiting  the  relations  of  the 
work  of  Christ  to  the  divine  nature.  The  sacrifi- 
cial element  as  distinguished  from  the  legal  is  very 
apparent  in  this  schoolman.  .  .  .  'The  Son  oif 
God,'  he  says,  'by  becoming  man,  paid  man's 
debt  to  the  Father,  and  by  dying  expiated  man's 
guilt." 

The  absurdity  of  these  views  is  too  apparent  to 
require  special  notice. 

5.  Bonaventura  (1272)  is  one  of  the  most  astute 
of  the  schoolmen.     He  agrees,  except  as  to  the  ab- 
solute necessity  of  atonement,  with  Anselm,  and 
labors  with  much  earnestness  and  skill  to  free  the 
scheme  from  objections.     He  raises  a  number  of 
questions,  which,  to  a  shrewd  mind,  having  right 


40  REVIEW  OF 

conceptions  of  God  and  a  moral  government,  would 
seem  to  be  impertinent  and  trifling,  such  as: 

"First,  Whether  it  was  fit  in  itself  (congruum) 
that  human  nature  should  be  restored  by  God. 

Secondly,  Whether  it  was  more  fitting  that  human 
nature  should  be  restored  by  a  satisfaction  of  jus- 
tice than  by  any  other  method. 

Thirdly,  Whether  any  sinless  creature  could  ren- 
der satisfaction  for  the  whole  human  race. 

Fourthly,  Whether  any  sinful  man,  assisted  by 
divine  grace,  could  make  satisfaction  for  his  own 
sins. 

Fifthly,  Whether  God  was  under  obligation  to 
accept  the  method  of  satisfaction  by  the  death  of 
Christ. 

Sixthly,  Whether  God  could  have  saved  the  hu- 
man race  by  some  other  method. ' ' 

These  questions  were  evidently  suggested  by  false 
notions  of  God,  justice,  satisfaction,  penal  suffering, 
and  the  mission  of  Christ.  The  soteriology  of  this 
author  is  subject  to  the  objections  that  lie  with 
crushing  force  against  the  penal  theory  in  all  its 
forms,  and  will  here  receive  no  further  notice. 

6.  Thomas  Aquinas  (1274)  is  considered  "the 
strongest  systematizer  among  the  schoolmen."  In 
answer  to  the  question  "Was  it  necessary  that 
Christ  should  suffer  in  order  to  the  salvation  of 
man  ?  "  he  discriminates  between  different  kinds  of 
necessity.  He  says: 

"If  by  necessity  be  meant  that  which  from  its 
very  nature  can  not  but  be  ...  then  there  was  no 
necessity  for  the  suffering  of  Christ. 

Again,  if  by  necessity,  external  compulsion  be 
meant,  then  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  not  nee- 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  41 

essary.  But,  thirdty,  a  thing  is  necessary  when  it 
is  indispensable  in  order  to  the  attainment  of  some 
other  thing,  and  in  this  sense  the  death  of  Christ  is 
necessary.  It  is,  not,  indeed, 'a  matter  of  necessity 
that  a  man's  sin  should  be  pardoned,  but  if  it  be 
pardoned  it  is  necessary  that  Christ  should  first 
make  satisfaction  to  justice  for  its  commission/' 

This  discrimination  between  different  kinds  of 
necessity  is  proper.  Christ's  death  was  necessary — 
not  in  the  sense  that  it  could  not  but  be,  nor  in  the 
sense  of  external  compulsion — but  necessary  as  a 
means  of  human  salvation.  But  Aquinas,  in  com- 
mon with  penalists,  mistakes  utterly  the  sense  in 
which  Christ's  death  was  necessary  as  a  means  of 
salvation.  His  death  was  necessary,  not  to  satisfy 
justice  in  relation  to  others,  but  because  if  he  had 
not  died  he  could  not  have  risen,  and  if  he  had  not 
risen  he  could  not  have  become  a  quickening  spirit, 
and  if  he  had  not  become  a  quickening  spirit  he 
could  have  saved  nobody,  and  would  be  no  Sav- 
ior. This  will  be  made  plain  in  subsequent  dis- 
cussions. 

In  reply  to  the  question,  whether  redemption 
could  not  have  been  accomplished  in  some  other 
method,  he  teaches  that: 

"Though  it  is,  abstractly  considered,  possible  to 
save  man  in  some  other  manner,  it  becomes  impos- 
sible, when  once  God  has  determined  to  accomplish 
the  work  in  the  way  and  manner  he  has. ' ' 

In  this  statement  he  rejects  the  very  foundation 
of  Anselm's  theory,  which  posits  the  necessity  of 
atonement  in  divine  justice,  independently  of  the 
divine  will.  He  further  says: 


42  REVIEW  OF 

"If  God  had  willed  to  liberate  man  from  sin 
without  any  satisfaction,  he  would  not  have  done 
any  thing  contrary'  to  justice.  ...  If  God  sees  fit 
to  remit  that  penalty,  which  has.  been  affixed  to 
law  only  for  his  own  glory,  no  injustice  is  done." 

It  is  thus  seen  that  Anselm  and  Aquinas  are  in 
irreconcilable  conflict  as  to  the  foundation  princi- 
ples of  the  penal  scheme  of  salvation.  Aquinas  is 
more  in  harmony  with  Augustine  and  the  papal 
church  generally  than  with  Anselm. 

7.  Duns  Scotus  asserted  a  scheme  of  soteriology 
in  violent  conflict  with  his  predecessors,  and  di- 
vided the  papal  church  into  two  great  parties,  called 
Thomists  and  Scotists.  The  foundation  of  his  the- 
ory was:  -"Tanlttm  valet  omne  creatum  oblatum 
pro  quanta  acceptat  Deus  illud  et  non  plus. ' '  He 
denied  the  infinite  demerit  of  sin,  and  the  infinite 
value  of  Christ's  sufferings.  He  held  that: 

"God  was  pleased  to  accept  this  particular  sac- 
rifice as  an  offset  and  equivalent  for  human  trans- 
gressions; not  from  any  intrinsic  value  in  it,  but 
because  he  so  pleased.  He  might  have  accepted 
any  other  substitute,  or  he  might  have  dispensed 
with  accepting  any  substitute  at  all." 

Duns  Scotus  makes  penal  satisfaction  purely  a 
matter  of  divine  pleasure  and  not  of  justice,  and  all 
oblations  are  worth  just  what  God  may  be  pleased  to 
accept  them  at,  and  no  more.  His  scheme,  upon 
the  whole  is,  perhaps,  not  more  unreasonable  or 
unscriptural  than  that  of  Anselm,  but  it  evinces  an 
utter  misapprehension  of  the  mediation  of  Christ. 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  43 


CHAPTER  V. 

SECTION  I. — Soteriology  of  the  Reformation. 

Anselm  was  a  warm  admirer  of  Augustine,  whose 
anthropology  he  seems  to  have  accepted  in  full. 
He,  it  is  conceded,  was  the  first  theologian  who 
attempted  a  systematic  formulation  of  a  substitu- 
tionary  and  penal  scheme  of  soteriology.  It  was 
but  natural,  all  things  considered,  that  he  should 
construct  his  soteriology  to  meet  the  requirements 
of  Augustinian  anthropology.  In  brief,  his  soteri- 
ology may  be  regarded  as  the  natural  product  of  a 
false  anthropology,  false  views  of  human  freedom, 
and  false  conceptions  of  the  nature  and  possibilities 
of  the  moral  law;  or  regarded  as  the  theological 
complement  of  universal  predestination,  uncondi- 
tional election  and  reprobation,  irresistible  grace, 
and  philosophical  necessity,  so  called. 

Anselm  did  his  work  with  a  masterly  hand,  so 
much  so  that  eight  hundred  years  of  keen  dialect- 
ical sifting  has  been  able  to  add  but  little  of  any 
value  to  the  theory. 

The  Reformers,  too,  were  warm  admirers  of 
Augustine.  Accepting  his  anthropology  without 
questioning  its  truth,  they  very  naturally  accepted 
the  Anselmic  soteriology,  which  is  dove-tailed 
into  it. 

The  distinction  between  the  active  and  passive 


44  REVIEW  OF 

obedience  of  Christ  is  an  addition,  but  surely  no 
improvement  to  the  theory.  The  Reformers  also 
rejected  the  Anselmic  conceit  that  the  elect  were 
equal  in  number  to  the  fallen  angels. 

The  Reformers,  according  to  Dr.  Shedd,  have 
much  more  to  say  than  does  Anselm  as  to  how  men 
are  saved  or  put  into  possession  of  Christ's  active  and 
passive  obedience.  Different  doctrinal  statements 
are  given  in  their  answers  to  this  question.  These 
differences  are  more  in  terminology  than  in  the 
doctrine.  Perhaps  we  can  find  no  answer  more 
explicit  or  of  higher  authority  than  that  given  in 
the  Westminster  Confession  (chap,  x.,  sees,  i,  2): 

"All  those  whom  God  hatlj  predestinated  unto 
life,  and  those  only,  he  is  pleased  in  his  appointed 
and  acccepted  time  effectually  to  call,  by  his  word 
and  spirit,  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death  in  which 
they  are  by  nature,  to  grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus 
Christ ;  enlightening  their  minds  spiritually  and 
savingly  to  understand  the  things  ol  God,  taking 
away  their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them  a 
heart  of  flesh;  renewing  their  wills,  and  by  his  al- 
mighty power  determining  them  to  that  which  is 
good;  and  effectually  drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ, 
yet  so  as  they  come  most  freely,  being  made  willing 
by  his  grace. 

This  effectual  call  is  of  God's  free  and  special 
grace  alone,  not  from  any  thing  at  all  foreseen  in 
man,  who  is  altogether  passive  therein,  until,  being 
quickened  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is 
thereby  enabled  to  answer  this  call,  and  to  embrace 
the  grace  offered  and  conveyed  in  it." 

This  is  sufficiently  explicit  and  sufficiently  mon- 
ergistic. 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  45 

SECTION  II. — Grotius*  Soteriology. 

This  is  radically  different  from  that  of  Anselm, 
and  very  much  like  that  of  Duns  Scotus.  Grotius 
was  a  distinguished  scholar  and  jurist,  and  lays  his 
legal  learning  largely  under  contribution  in  formu- 
lating his  soteriology. 

We  may  learn  the  leading  principles  of  his  scheme 
from  the  following  quotations  taken  from  ' '  History 
of  Christian  Doctrine. ' '  He  says  : 

'  'All  positive  laws  are  relaxable.  Those  who  fear 
that  if  we  concede  this  we  do  an  injury  to  God,  be- 
cause we  thereby  represent  him  as  mutable  are  much 
deceived.  For  law  is  not  something  internal  in 
God,  or  in  the  will  itself  of  God,  but  it  is  a  par- 
ticular effect  or  product  of  his  will.  But  that  the 
effects  or  products  of  the  divine  will  are  mutable,  is 
very  certain.  Moreover,  in  promulgating  a  positive 
law  which  he  might  wish  to  relax  at  some  future 
time,  God  does  not  exhibit  any  fickleness  of  will." 

In  proof  of  this  he  refers  to  the  abrogation  of  the 
ceremonial  law. 

In  reply  to  the  objection  that  "guilt  should  be 
punished,  .  .  .  and  therefore,  that  punishment  is 
not  a  matter  of  '  optional  choice, '  neither  is  it  re- 
laxable," he  says: 

"It  is  to  be  noticed  that  it  does  not  always  follow 

.  that  injustice  is  done  when  justice  is  not  done.  .   .   . 

It  is  not  a  universal  truth  that  if  a  thing  may  be 

done  with  justice,  it  can  not,  therefore,  be  omitted 

without  injustice." 

What  Grotius  says  of  justice  is  true;  what  he 
says  of  law  is  not  true  of  the  great  moral  law  of 


46  REVIEW  OF 

God,    but   is   true   only  of  ordinances  which  are 
intended  as  servitors  of  this  moral  law. 
Grotius  says: 

"He  who  sins  deserves  to  be  punished.  .  .  . 
But  that  any  and  every  sinner  be  punished  with 
such  a  punishment  as  corresponds  with  his  guilt  is 
not  absolutely  and  universally  necessary." 

He  teaches  that  God  has  the  absolute  right  to 
relax  or  even  abolish  law,  but  that  it  would  be  im- 
proper to  do  either  without  weighty  reasons.  He 
says: 

' '  The  all- wise  Legislator  has  a  most  weighty  cause 
for  relaxing  this  law,  in  the  fact  that  the  human 
race  had  lapsed  into  sin.  For  if  all  mankind  had 
been  given  over  to  eternal  death,  as  transgressors, 
two  most  beautiful  things  would  have  utterly  per- 
ished out  of  the  universe — reverence  and  religion 
toward  God,  on  the  part  of  man,  and  the  exhibition 
of  a  wonderful  benevolence  toward  man  on  the  part 
of  God." 

Grotius  holds  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  law  is 
not  abrogated  or  relaxed  as  to  all  mankind,  but 
only  as  "to  a  certain  class  of  persons, ' '  viz. :  be- 
lievers. "This  relaxation  consists  in  merely  dis- 
pensing with  the  penalty;  the  law  as  a  precept  or 
rule  of  duty  is  untouched  and  unrelaxed." 

But  it  is  asked,  if  God  by  an  act  of  will  can  relax 
and  even  abrogate  the  law,  why  did  Christ  die,  or 
make  any  atonement  at  all  ?  To  this  Grotius  re- 
plies : 

^  The  necessities  and  requirements  of  the  created 
universe  render  it  unsafe  (for  God)  to  exercise  his 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  47 

power  and  right  to  remit  the  penalty  of  the  law 
without  any  satisfaction  of  any  kind,  on  the  ground, 
therefore,  that  the  interest  of  the  creature,  and  not 
on  the  ground  that  the  attributes  of  the  Creator 
require  it,  must  there  be  an  atonement  in  order  to 
remission.  ...  So  many  and  so  great  sins  can  not 
be  remitted  with  safety  to  the  interests  of  creation, 
unless  God  at  the  same  time  give  some  kind  of  ex- 
pression to  his  detestation  of  sin.  The  sufferings 
and  death  of  the  Son  of  God  are  an  exemplary 
exhibition  of  God's  hatred  of  moral  evil,  in  con- 
nection with  which  it  is  safe  and  prudent  to  remit 
that  penalty  which  so  far  as  God  and  the  divine 
attributes  are  concerned  might  have  been  remitted 
without  it." 

Grotius  here  distinctly  announces  the  fundamental 
principles  of  what  is  variously  called  the  Govern- 
mental, Rectoral,  and  New  Calvinistic  theory  of 
atonement,  according  to  which  Christ  suffered  pe- 
nally not  to  satisfy  retributive,  but  administrative 
justice;  he  died  in  the  "interest  of  creation,  and 
not  in  the  interest  of  the  divine  attribute  of  justice;" 
his  death  was  purely  exemplary  and  expressive  of 
God's  hatred  of  sin.  As  a  theory  it  avoids  some  of 
the  hard  points  of  the  Anselmic  scheme;  but  is 
itself  involved  in  inexplicable  confusion,  as  will  be 
seen. 

SECTION  III.  —  The  Anselmic  and  the  Grotian 
Soteriology  Contrasted. 

These  soteriologies  differ  so  widely  both  in  their 
radical  principles  and  in  their  details  that  it  seems 
not  improper  to  note  some  of  their  antagonisms. 

i.  Anselm  posits  the  law  in  the  divine  nature  so 
that  God  being  what  he  is  the  law  necessarily  is  as 


48  REVIEW  OF 

it  is.  Grotius  makes  the  law  the  product  of  the 
divine  will.  Hi  this  Grotius  is  right  and  Anselm 
wrong. 

2.  Anselm  makes  the  law  unabrogable,  and  even 
unrelaxable.     Grotius  makes  it  relaxable  and  even 
abrogate,    if   God   should    will    either.       In   this 

O 

Anselm  is  right,  and  Grotius  is  wrong,  as  we  may 
see. 

3.  According  to  Anselm' s  notion  of  the  law,  its 
abrogation  would  be  the  destruction  of  the  Deity 
and  its  relaxation  a  modification  of  his  nature,  just 
as  the  destruction  of  any  of  the  primary  properties 
of  matter  would  be  the  destruction  of  matter  itself, 
and  a  change  of  the  properties  of  matter  would  be 
a  modification  of  matter  itself. 

But  according  to  Grotius'  idea  of  the  law,  its 
abrogation  would  be  an  exemption  from  all  obliga- 
tion, and  its  relaxation  a  partial  exemption. 

But  according  to  the  true  conception  of  the  law, 
its  abrogation  would  be  the  destruction  of  the  created 
mind  itself,  and  its  relaxation  a  modification  of  the 
nature  of  the  mind.  For  the  law  is  a  concreation 
of  the  mind — is  written  upon  the  heart — and  as  such 
is  as  truly  a  product  of  the  divine  will  as  is  the 
mind  itself.  Hence,  an  abrogation  of  the  law  would 
involve  the  destruction  of  the  mind  and  its  relaxa- 
tion an  essential  change  of  the  mind,  just  as  the 
abrogation  or  modification  of  the  essential  properties 
of  matter  would  involve  its  destruction  or  modifica- 
tion. Hence,  while  divine  ordinances  or  laws  of 
expediency,  which  are  only  objective  and  are  only 
survitors  of  the  great  moral  law  may  be  abrogated 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  49 

or  relaxed,  no  concreated  and  subjective  law  can  be 
so  dealt  with  without  disastrous  consequences. 

Anselm  is  fatally  at  fault  when  he  makes  the  law 
indigenous  to  the  divine  nature  and  independent  of 
the  divine  will.  Grotius  is  equally  at  fault  when 
he  fails  to  make  the  law  indigenous  to  the  human 
mind,  or  subjective  as  well  as  objective,  and  asserts 
it  to  be  abrogable  and  relaxable. 

4.  Anselm   asserts   an   absolute,    and   Grotius   a' 
relative,  necessity  for  atonement  for  sin.     Anselm 
posits  this  necessity  in  the  divine  attributes;  Grotius 
posits  it  in  the  exigencies  of  the  divine  government. 
Both  are  radically  wrong,  for  the  real  necessity  is 
found  in  the  lapsed  state  of  humanity,  or  rather  in 
the  purpose  of  God  to  save  sinners.     It  is  man  that 
needs  a  mediator,  not  God. 

5.  Anselm  makes  the  death  of  Christ  ipso  facto 
satisfy  justice  or  law,  expiate  the  guilt  and  necessi- 
tate the  salvation  of  all  for  whom  he  died.     Grotius 
makes  the  death  of  Christ  exemplify  God's  hatred 
to  sin,  and  so  vindicate  the  righteousness  of  the 
divine  government  as  to  justify  God  in  relaxing  the 
law  as  to  its  penalty  in  regard  to  believers,   but 
leaves  the  sinner  to  meet  the  preceptive  requirements 
of  the  law  by  his  own  obedience;  thus  rendering, 
as  he  believes,  salvation  possible  to  all,  inevitable 
to  none,  but  sure  only  to  believers.     Both  are  rad- 
ically wrong,  for  the  death  of  Christ  of  itself  satis- 
fies substitutionally  no  law,  expiates  no  guilt,  relaxes 
no  claims,  and  saves-  no  souls. 

The  risen  Christ  alone  saves.     This,  I  trust,  will 
be  made  sufficiently  plain. 
4 


^o  REVIEW  OF 

6.  Anselm's  scheme  involves  the  doctrine  of  sal- 
vation by  works  in  its  most  rigid  form.  Perfect 
obedience  to  the  law  is  salvation  by  ' '  deeds  of  the 
law,"  whether  this  obedience  is  rendered  by  a  sub- 
stitute or  by  a  principal.  Hence,  if  Christ  fully 
obeyed  the  law  for  the  elect,  then  they  are  as  truly 
saved  by  the  deeds  of 'the  law  as  if  they  had  rendered 
that  obedience  themselves.  But  if  salvation  is  by 
works,  then  it  is  not  by  grace. 

Grotius'  scheme  is  obnoxious  to  the  same  charges 
in  a  different  form,  unless  we  should  choose  to  call 
relaxation  of  law,  or  "dispensing  with  penalty," 
an  act  of  grace. 

According  to  Anselm  this  obedience  was  rendered 
wholly  by  the  substitute,  and  the  salvation  of  the 
elect  is  purely  a  matter  of  law — hence  not  of  grace. 
According  to  Grotius  the  obedience  is  rendered 
partly  by  the  substitute,  and  partly  by  the  sinner 
himself;  or  the  obedience  of  the  substitute  and  that 
of  the  principal  so  supplement  each  other  as  to 
meet  the  full  preceptive  requirements  of  the  law, 
the  penalty  being  dispensed  with  by  relaxation. 
If  this  relaxation  is  regarded  as  an  act  of  grace,  as 
Grotius  no  doubt  considered  it,  then  it  is  plain  that 
his  scheme  saves  the  sinner  partly  by  the  legal  obe- 
dience of  Christ,  partly  by  his  own  obedience,  and 
partly  by  the  grace  of  relaxation. 

[Note. — This  question  is  here  only  incidentally 
mentioned,  and  will  be  more  fully  considered  in 
another  connection.  ] 

Between  two  theories  so  manifestly  false  there  is 
perhaps  no  grounds  for  a  rational  choice.  We 


CHRISTIAN  SOTKK.IO.LOGV.  51 

know  that  salvation  is  purely  and  exclusively  by 
grace — not  by  the  works  of  the  law  performed  by 
either  principal  or  substitute.  "By  the  deeds  of 
the  law  (whether  performed  by  Christ  or  the  sinner) 
shall  no  man  be  justified."  It  is  not  Christ's  deeds 
that  are  "the  end  of. the  law  for  righteousness  to 
every  one  that  believeth,"  but  Christ  himself.  It 
is  not  the  Lord's  deeds  that  is  our  righteousness, 
but  the  Lord  himself.  It  is  not  Christ's  works,  his 
death,  etc.,  that  is  made  unto  us  wisdom,  right- 
eousness, sanctification,  and  redemption,  but  Christ 
himself.  We  are  saved  by  grace,  not  by  works 
personal  or  substitutionary. 


52  .  REVIEW  OF 


CHAPTER  VI. 

SECTION  I. — Limborch  and  Curcellaeus. 

The  writings  of  these  authors  present  us  with  a 
form  of  Arminian  soteriology  as  distinguished  from 
that  of  the  Reformers.  Dissenting  radically  from 
the  Augustinian  anthropology,  consistency  imper- 
atively required  them  to  reject  the  Anselmic  soteri- 
ology, or  at  least  to  materially  modify  it.  The  fact 
that  their  earnest  endeavor  was  only  a  partial  suc- 
cess is  attributable  not  to  a  want  of  ability,  but 
rather  to  the  difficulty  of  freeing  themselves  from 
the  influence  of  an  inherited  faith  and  popular 
prejudices.  They,  however,  made  some  material 
advancement  in  the  right  direction,  discarded  some 
of  the  errors  of  the  popular  faith,  and  freed  the 
doctrine  of  propitiation  from  the  ungracious  limi- 
tarianism  which  Augustinian  anthropology  had 
imposed  upon  it.  Their  endeavor  was  to  avoid 
what  they  deemed  the  errors  of  Socinianism,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  those  of  the  Reformers  on  the 
other.  This  Grotius  had  attempted  to  do,  but  his 
doctrine  was  not  acceptable  to  them  because  he  rep- 
resented that  the  atonement  was  made  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  moral  government,  and  not  to  satisfy 
divine  justice.  Limborch,  in  criticising  Grotius' 
opinions  on  this  point,  raises  the  question:  "An 
Christus  morte  sua,  circa  Deum  aliquid  effecerit?" 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  53 

He  answers  in  the  affirmative,  insisting  that  Christ, 
by  his  death,  did  in  some  way  satisfy  the  divine 
nature  in  behalf  of  sinful  humanity. 
L,imborch  says: 

"Jesus  Christ  may  be  said  to  have  been  punished 
\_punitus]  in  our  place,  in  so  far  as  he  endured  the 
greatest  anguish  of  soul  and  the  accursed  death  of 
the  cross  for  us,  which  were  of  the  nature  of  a  vica-  - 
rious  punishment  in  the  place  of  our  sins.  \_Quez 
poen<z  vicari<z  pro  peccatis  nostris  rationem  hab- 
uitJ\  And  it  may  be  said  that  our  Lord  satisfied 
the  Father  for  us  by  his  death,  and  earned  right- 
eousness for  us  in  so  far  as  he  satisfied  not  the  rigor 
and  exactitude  of  the  divine  justice,  but  the  just 
as  well  as  compassionate  will  of  God  \yoluntati  Dei 
justcz  simul  ac  misericordi\  and  went  through  all 
that  God  required  in  order  to  our  reconciliation." 

The  very  form  of  these  statements  shows  that 
Limborch  was  satisfied  neither  with  the  doctrine 
of  Anselm  nor  that  of  Grotius;  that  he  believed 
the  truth  to  lie  between  these  conflicting  theories. 
He  denies  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  satisfied 
divine  justice  in  its  rigor  and  exactitude,  but 
asserts  that  these  sufferings  did  satisfy  the  just  and 
compassionate  will  of  God.  He  evidently  means 
that  the  death  of  Christ  was  more  than  exemplary 
and  governmental,  as  Grotius  taught;  that  it  did 
satisfy  justice  or  law  in  some  way,  but  not  in  the 
Anselmic  sense.  He  made  a  laudable  effort  to  find 
a  position  between  Anselm  and  Grotius  by  agreeing 
with  both  in  some  things  and  differing  with  both 
in  some  things. 

Curcellaeus   expresses    himself    with    more   de- 


54  REVIEW  OF 

cision  and  precision  on  the  points  upon  which  he 
touches  than  does  Limborch.     He  says: 

"Christ  did  not  make  satisfaction  by  enduring  the 
punishment  which  we  sinners  merited.  This  does 
not  belong  to  the  nature  of  a  sacrifice,  and  has 
nothing  in  common  with  it.  For  sacrifices  are  not 
payment  of  debts,  as  is  evident  from  those  offered 
under  the  law.  The  beasts  that  were  slain  for 
transgressors  did  not  expiate  the  penalty  which 
they  merited,  nor  was  their  blood  a  sufficient  lutron 
for  the  soul  of  man.  But  they  were  oblations 
only  by  which  the  transgressor  endeavored  to  turn 
\Jlectere]  the  mind  of  God  to  compassion,  and  to 
obtain  remission  from  him.  Hence,  the  formula  in 
the  law  applied  to  those  who  had  expiated  their 
sins  by  offering  a  sacrifice:  "And  it  shall  be  for- 
given him." — Leviticus  iv.  26,  31,  35. 

Limborch  and  Curcellaeus  sufficiently  agreed  in 
opinion.  Their  views  may  be  expressed  in  the  fol- 
lowing propositions: 

I.  They  reject,  with  decision,  the  notion  that 
Christ's  death  satisfied  divine  justice,  expiated  the 
guilt  of  all  for  whom  he  died,  and  rendered  their 
final  salvation  a  matter  of  pure  justice. 

3.  They  hold  that  Christ's  death  was  of  the  nat- 
ure of  a  vicarious  punishment  for  sinners,  and 
earned  righteousness  for  us  in  so  far  as  it  satisfied 
the  just  as  well  as  compassionate  will  of  God,  who, 
by  an  act  of  will,  remits  the  sins  of  all  believers. 

The  different  parts  of  the  theory  are  hard  to  put 
together  so  as  to  give  a  clear  idea  of  how  the  sinner 
is  really  saved. 

Christ's  death  was  in  some  way  penal  and  vicari- 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  55 

ous,  and  ' '  earned  righteousness  for  us  in  so  far 
as  he  satisfied  the  just  as  well  as  the  compassionate 
will  of  God."  Yet  the  sinner's- salvation  is  not  as- 
sured, nor  even  possible,  without  a  gracious  par- 
doning act.  Now  the  trouble  is  to  understand  just 
how  much  in  the  matter  of  salvation  is  due  to 
Christ's  penal  and  vicarious  death — his  righteous- 
ness earned  for  us — and  how  much  to  the  gracious 
act  of  God's  "  compassionate  will."  It  seems  that 
the  sinner  is  saved,  partly  by  vicarious  obedience, 
and  partly  by  a  gracious  pardoning  act. 

But  salvation  secured  in  whole  or  in  part  by  the 
deeds  of  the  law,  as  we  have  seen,  is  not  salvation 
purely  by  grace.  One  radical  defect  in  the  scheme 
is  this  penal  and  vicarious  element.  In  this  it  is 
less  self-consistent  than  the  Anselmic,  which  saves 
the  sinner  exclusively  by  substitutionary  obedience 
to  the  law.  Another  defect  in  the  plan  is  this:  If 
any  sinner  for  whom  Christ  suffered  vicariously  and 
penally  in  any  sense,  happens  not  to  comply  with 
the  conditions  of  this  gracious  pardoning  act,  then, 
of  course,  the  penalty,  or  some  part  of  it,  is  twice 
endured,  by  Christ  and  by  the  sinner. 

3.  A  third  and  more  grave  objection  to  the  plan 
is,  that  it  saves  the  sinner  in  part  by  a  vicarious 
punishment,  and,  hence,  with  a  penal  righteous- 
ness.    But,  in  utter  condemnation  of  this  scheme, 
the  Bible  teaches  that  it  is  Christ  himself  that  saves 
sinners,  and  not  his  sufferings  or  death. 

4.  This  scheme  is  highly  commendable  for  two 
distinct  things: 


56  REVIEW  OF 

(1)  It  rejects  the  self-contradictory  notion  of  pe- 
nal sacrifices. 

(2)  It   refuses  to   make   salvation   inevitable   to 
some  and  impossible  to  others,  and  thus  maintains 
the  possibility  of  moral  retribution. 

SECTION  II. — How  men  are  saved  according  to 
Arminian  Authors. 

No  scheme  of  soteriology  is  complete  that  does 
not  clearly  indicate  how  it  secures  salvation  from 
sin. 

The  Arminian  theory  is  in  many  respects  radi- 
cally different  from  the  Anselmic  or  Calvinistic. 
The  latter  infallibly  saves  all  for  whom  Christ  died; 
but,  being  intended  for  a  part  only,  only  a  part 
can  be  saved. 

The  Arminian  theory  asserts  that  Christ  died  for 
all,  and  that  his  death  infallibly  secures  justification 
to  all  in  a  state  of  infancy,  and  that  none  are  lost 
except  those  that  commit  actual  sin  and  fail  to  re- 
pent. Arminius  himself  is  not  very  full  nor  very 
clear  in  his  teaching  on  this  subject. 

The  following  statements  (taken  from  Dr.  Mil- 
ler's "Conflict  of  Centuries,"  pp.  95,  96),  indicate 
his  views.  He  says  (Vol.  I.,  317): 

"For,  if  'original  sin  condemns  no  one,'  it  is  a 
necessary  consequence  that  all  those  will  be  saved 
who  have  not  themselves  committed  actual  trans- 
gressions. Of  this  class  are  all  infants  without  ex- 
ception." 

He  says  (Vol.   I.,  318,  319): 

^'All  those  will  be  saved  who  have  not  com- 
mitted actual  transgression.  Because  God  has  taken 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  57 

the  whole  human  race  into  the  grace  of  reconcilia- 
tion, and  has  entered  into  a  covenant  of  grace  with 
Adam  and  with  the  whole  of  his  posterity  in  him. 
.  .  .  And  since  infants  have  not  transgressed  this 
covenant,  they  do  not  seem  to  be  obnoxious  to  this 
condemnation.  .  .  .  When  Adam  sinned  in  his  own 
person  and  with  his  own  free  will,  God  pardoned 
that  transgression.  There  is  no  reason,  then,  why 
it  was  the  will  of  God  to  impute  this  sin  to  infants, 
who  are  said  (by  Augustine)  to  have  sinned  in  Adam 
before  they  had  any  personal  existence,  therefore, 
before  they  could  possibly  sin  at  their  own  will  and 
pleasure. ' ' 

Remarks. — i.  It  is  here  taught  that  God  par- 
doned Adam's  sin.  This  is  a  charitable  but  a  gra- 
tuitous assumption.  It  may  or  may  not  be  true. 
To  build  a  theory  upon  it  is  not  quite  safe. 

2.  It  is  also  taught  that  God  entered  into  a  cove- 
nant of  grace  with  Adam,  and  took  the  whole  hu- 
man race  into  the  grace  of  reconciliation.  This,  I 
suppose,  means  that  Adam  was  regenerated  as  well 
as  justified,  and  as  none  but  Adam  and  Eve  existed 
at  the  time  of  the  making  of  this  covenant,  all  their 
posterity  come  into  the  world  in  the  same  justified 
and  saved  state. 

I  do  not  understand  Arminius  to  mean  that  Ad- 
am's subsequent  obedience  would  insure  the  salva- 
tion of  all  or  any  of  his  posterity,  as  Augustinian- 
ism  teaches  woiild  have  been  the  consequence  of 
his  continuous  obedience  under  the  legal  covenant; 
but  that  each  individual  must  keep  the  covenant 
for  himself. 

Arminius  does  not  here  specify  the  terms  of  this 


58  REVIEW  OF 

gracious  covenant,  or  indicate  wherein  it  differs 
from  the  first  or  legal  covenant,  which  Adam  trans- 
gressed. 

If  one  sin  is  sufficient  to  produce  a  forfeiture  of 
covenanted  blessings,  and  bring  condemnation,  then, 
wherein  does  this  covenant  of  grace  differ  from  the 
original  covenant  of  works  ? 

If  one  sin  does  not  bring  condemnation,  then, 
how  many  may  be  committed  without  incurring  it  ? 

If  a  person,  as  an  adult,  keeps  'this  covenant 
through  life,  is  he  saved  by  grace  or  by  works  ? 

If  a  child  dies  in  infancy,  by  whose  righteousness 
or  obedience  is  it  saved — by  its  own  or  that  of 
Adam,  or  that  of  Christ  ?  I  know  some  say,  it  is 
saved,  as  to  its  body,  by  Christ  in  the  resurrection. 
But  the  material  question  is,  by  whose  obedience  is 
its  soul  saved? 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  infant  is  capable  neither 
of  obedience  nor  disobedience  and,  hence,  seems  to 
be  a  proper  subject  neither  of  justification  nor  of 
condemnation.  Yet,  we  must  needs  save  it,  soul 
and  body.  Augustinians  have  no  more  trouble 
with  infant  salvation  than  with  adult;  for  with  them 
the  salvation  of  adults  and  of  infants  is  purely  mon- 
ergistic. 

But  how  the  infant  is  saved  is  a  troublesome 
question  to  non-necessitarians.  Arminians  are  not 
well  agreed  among  themselves.  Some  save  them, 
or  seem  to  save  them,  at  least  as  to  their  souls,  with- 
out Christ;  others  through  Christ,  some  with  and 
others  without  regeneration. 

Unless  it  has  the  mind  of  Christ,  it  is  none  of 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  59 

his.  This  it  can  not  have  except  by  being  made 
partaker  of  Christ's  nature  in  regeneration.  If  this 
regeneration  is  unconditional,  it  seems  hard  to  escape 
the  doctrine  of  a  necessitated  virtue  or  obedience. 
I  do  not  claim  to  be  able  to  relieve  the^subject  of  all 
embarrassment.  I  think,  however,  that  conditioned 
infant  regeneration  is  not  an  impossible  or  absurd 
thing. 

1.  What  changes  actually  occur  in  the  capacities 
of  the  soul  as  the  spiritual  world  begins  to  open 
upon  the  mental  vision — whether  the  mind  becomes 
more  vigorous  and  capable  of  clearer  apprehension 
of  truth — we  do  not  know. 

But  assuming  that  such  favorable  changes  do 
occur  at  this  juncture  in  the  capacities  of  the  intel- 
lect, then,  of  course,  the  emotional  and  volitional 
power  will  be  proportionally  increased,  and  the 
voluntary  acceptance  of  Christ  becomes  possible  to 
the  infant  mind  before  it  has  left  the  body. 

But  assuming  that  no  such  advantageous  changes 
occur,  still  it  is  perhaps  not  impossible  for  regenera- 
tion— such  as  is  needed  to  fit  the  soul  for  communion 
with  Christ — to  occur  by  its  normal  method. 

2.  As  the  beatific  vision  unfolds   to   the  infant 
spirit,  unconscious  of  evil,  in  its  transit  across  the 
border  line,  it,  ere  it  leaves  the  body,  ma}'  be  so 
enamored  of  the  loveliness  of  Christ  and  the  heav- 
enly world  as  to  yield  to  him  with  all  its  will  power 
— though  it  may  be  little  more  than  instinct — and 
be  filled  with  the  love  of  a  new-born  soul.     If  it  is 
not  distinctly  conscious  of  faith  in  Christ  it  may  be 
rapturously  conscious  of  a  new-born  love,  and  love 


6o  REVIEW  OF 

is  bliss.  Christ  loves  it,  but  does  not  love  in  its 
stead,  but  imparts  his  own  nature  to  it  as  the  altar 
imparts  its  holiness  to  the  gifts  placed  upon  it, 
and  thus  enables  it  to  love  for  itself ;  and  to  love  is 
to  be  saved  and  happy;  for  "love  is  the  fulfilling 
of  the  law."' 

3.  We  know  that  very  young  children  have  a 
ready  capacity  for  the  beautiful,  and  without  any 
rational  comprehension  of  beautiful  objects,  seek  to 
appropriate  them. 

Why,  then,  may  not  the  infant  spirit,  as  it  ap- 
proaches the  spirit  land,  be  enamored  of  the  loveli- 
ness of  the  glorified  Christ,  and  seek  to  appropriate 
him  as  it  is  wont  to  do  with  other  objects  that 
delight  it? 

I  do  not  offer  this  as  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the 
difficult  problem  of  infant  salvation.  It,  however, 
avoids  the  extreme  rnonergism  of  Augustinianism, 
on  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  the  ungracious  no- 
tion that  infants  may  be  saved  without  regeneration. 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  61 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SECTION  I. — Limborcfts  Soteriology. 

' '  The  man  who  elaborated,  and  set  forth  more 
luminously  than  all  others,  the  Arminian  theory, 
was  Philip  Limborch  [1633-1717]."  I  do  not  pro- 
pose a  general  examination  of  the  doctrines  of  this 
able  advocate  of  Arminianism,  but  will  briefly 
notice  his  views  as  to  how  atonement  saves  man. 
He  says  [see  Schaif's  History,  Chap.  II.,  27]: 

' '  Adam  as  being  the  common  parent  of  all  man- 
kind, exposed  all  his  posterity*  to  the  same  miseries 
to  which  himself  was  liable.  For  it  is  not  to  be 
supposed  that  Adam's  sin  had  no  effect  but  upon 
himself  alone,  which  is  said  to  be  the  error  of 
Pelagius.  But  all  the  miseries  into  which  he  fell 
by  his  sin  are  entailed  upon  his  posterity.  .  .  .  All 
are  subject  to  the  same  fate,  viz.,  death.  However, 
this  death  is  not  to  be  looked  upon  as  properly  a 
punishment  inflicted  on  Adam's  posterity;  for  it  is 
impossible  that  the  innocent  should  be  punished  for 
another's  offense,  but  is  a  natural  necessity  of  dying, 
derived  from  Adam,  on  whom  it  was  inflicted  as  a 
punishment." 

Remarks.—**..  It  is  here  taught  that  Adam's  sin 
affected  his  posterity,  entailing  upon  them  all  the 
miseries  that  were  visited  upon  himself.  But  by 
"miseries"  is  here  meant  not  moral,  but  only 
physical  evils,  such  as  pain  in  parturition,  disease, 
and  death. 


62  REVIEW  OF 

2.  It  is  here  assumed  that  all  miseries,  including 
physical  death,  are  the  results  of  Adam's  sin,  which 
is  contradicted  by  every  science  that  sheds  a  ray  of 
light  on  the  subject. 

On  this  point  Limborch  indorses  Augustine,  who 
attributed  physical  death  and  all  physical  evils  to 
Adam's  sin. 

3.  Limborch    antagonizes   the   Augustinian   as- 
sumption that  all  suffering  presupposes  guilt  in  the 
sufferer.     He  teaches  that  what  Adam  suffered  as  a 
punishment,  viz.,  death,  his  children  suffer   from 
natural  necessity,  and  without  any  fault  of  their 
own.     In  this,  however,  he  is  not  consistent  with 
himself.     If  the  children  are  subjected  to  physical 
death  without  personal  guilt,  why  was  Adam  not 
subject  to  it  without  personal  guilt,  or  before  he 
sinned,  or  without  any  voluntary  agency  of  his  own  ? 
Yet  the  death  of  the  children,  Limboreh  teaches, 
was  the   natural  result  of  Adam's  sin.     This  as- 
sumes the  death  of  Adam  to  be  judicial,  or  a  penal 
visitation   of  a  supernatural  providence;    but  the 
same  death  in  relation  to  his  children,  to  be  a  non- 
judicial  and  non-penal  result  of  a  natural  necessity, 
or  a  natural  providence;  and  yet  it  was  in  some  way 
conditioned  upon  Adam's  sin,  or  physical  death  was 
judicial  and  penal  in  Adam,  but  is  natural  and  non- 
penal  in  his  posterity. 

Now,  I  submit,  whether  punishment  judicially 
inflicted  upon  the  parent  ever  becomes,  because 
of  the  offense  thus  punished,  the  natural  and  non- 
penal  heritage  of  the  children.  If  there  is  any  uni- 
formity in  nature  then  we  must  believe  that  if 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  63 

physical  death  was  penal  in  Adam,  then  it  must  be 
so  in  his  children;  if  not  penal  but  natural  in  the 
children  then  it  was  only  natural  in  Adam. 

I  protest  against  the  notion  that  God  changed  the 
order  of  the  physical  world  on  account  of  Adam's 
sin. 

4.  Limborch  teaches  that  Adam's  sin  was  judi- 
cially visited  with  physical  and  moral  evils  upo;i 
himself,  and  these  physical  evils  become  the  heri- 
tage of  his  posterity  by  natural  necessity  or  natural 
heredity.  When  he  says,  "All  the  miseries  into 
which  he  fell  by  his  sin  are  entailed  upon  his  pos- 
terity," he,  by  "miseries,"  means  only  temporal 
evils,  as  expulsion  from  paradise,  pain  in  child- 
bearing,  the  wife's  subjection  to  the  husband,  earn- 
ing bread  by  the  sweat  of  the  face;  but  Adam's 
guilt  was  not  entailed  either  judicially  or  other- 
wise. He,  however,  admits 

( '  That  infants  are  born  in  a  less  degree  of  purity 
than  Adam  was  created,  and  have  a  certain  inclina- 
tion to  sin,  which  they  derive  not  from  Adam,  but 
from  their  next  immediate  parents." 

This  seems  to  be  a  fatal  admission ;  for  ' '  a  less 
degree  of  purity  "  implies  some  degree  of  impurity. 
If  as  Limborch  says  truly,  ' '  Our  first  parents  (were 
not)  created  holy,  but  only  innocent  and  upright," 
then  they  were  not  fit  for  heaven,  for  without  holi- 
ness "no  man  shall  see  the  Lord."  If  children  are 
born  with  a  less  degree  of  purity  than  had  Adam, 
and  he  was  created  only  innocent — not  holy  or 
righteous — then  of  course  they  are  not  fit  for  heaven. 


64  REVIEW  OF 

This  natal  "  inclination  to  sin  derived  .  .  .  from 
parents"  implies  in  the  case  of  infants,  disqualifica- 
tion for  heaven.  Certainly  we  should  distinguish 
between  an  inclination  to  sin  and  the  act  of  sinning. 
The  first  is  the  state  of  the  sensibility,  and  the  other 
an  act  of  the  will.  But  if  the  inclination  is  not 
resisted  by  an  act  of  will,  it  becomes  sin;  to  hate  a 
brother  is  murder.  The  inclination  to  sin  will  sure- 
ly lead  to  sin,  if  it  is  not  counteracted  by  an  adverse 
inclination ;  and  we  have  no  evidence  of  any  adverse 
natal  inclination  in  infants. 

Pelagius  is  more  consistent  with  himself  than 
Limborch.  The  former  denied  all  natal  deteriora- 
tion in  the  child,  and  thought  it  needed  no  regen- 
eration to  insure  it  against  punishment.  The  latter 
admits  it  less  pure  than  Adam,  and  to  be  inclined 
to  sin,  yet  thinks  it  fit  for  heaven  without  any  spir- 
itual change. 

Again,  Pelagius  and  Ljmborch  exactly  reverse 
each  other  in  regard  to  natural  evils.  What  Pe- 
lagius attributes  to  the  natural  course  of  things,  as 
physical  pain,  death,  etc.,  Limborch  attributes  to 
a  judicial  curse  inflicted  upon  Adam  as  a  punish- 
ment, all  of  which  comes  upon  his  children  as  an 
inheritance,  or  from  natural  necessity. 

If  infants  are  free  from  such  moral  defection  as 
disqualifies  them  for  heaven,  I  do  not  see  how  they 
are  in  any  proper  sense  saved,  as  to  their  souls,  by 
Christ. 

Arminius  admits,  or  seems  to  admit,  the  possi- 
bility of  a  transmission  of  disqualification  for  heav- 
en by  heredity,  or  by  covenant;  but  insists  that  as  a 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  65 

matter  of  fact  Adam  was  converted  prior  to  the 
propagation  of  his  species,  and  could,  therefore, 
transmit  only  his  regenerated  nature.  But  Lim- 
borch  denies  that  such  disqualification  can  be  trans- 
mitted from  parent  to  child;  but  insists  that  natural 
evils,  as  pain  and  death,  are  actually  transmitted. 

These  astute  theologians  also  differ  as  to  the  re- 
lation of  Adam  and  his  children,  Arminius  mak- 
ing it  both  natural  and  federal,  and  Ljmborch  only 
natural.  In  relation  to  these  positions,  two  in- 
quiries seem  pertinent: 

1.  If  Adam  could  and  did  transmit  physical  evil, 
as  pain  and  death,  or  the  forfeiture  of  animal  life, 
why  could  he  not  transmit  moral  evil  or  spiritual 
death?     Sin  is  itself   disobedience  to  moral  law. 
Why,  then,  should  it  involve  Adam's  posterity  in 
physical  evil  only  ?  or  why  should  it  involve  them 
in  physical  evil  at  all  ?     Might  we  not  as  reasonably 
say  that  the  violation  of  physical  law  involves  not 
physical  but  only  moral  evils?    To  these  and  other 
similar  questions,  the  theory  in  hand  can,  I  think, 
give  no  satisfactory  answer. 

2.  How  can  a  natural  agency  produce  supernat- 
ural results?     This  would   be  the  case   if  Adam 
transmitted  his  regenerated  nature  to  his  descend- 
ants.    . 

It  is  a  charitable  assumption  that  Adam  was  re- 
generated and  saved,  but  there  is,  I  think,  no  con- 
clusive proof.  Even  if  he  was  regenerated,  he 
manifestly  could  not  impart  that  regenerated  state 
to  his  children,  for  that  was  a  derivation  from 
Christ — a  supernatural  change  in  his  relation  to 
5 


66  REVIEW  OF 

God,  which  he  could  not  himself  produce,  no  more 
than  the  leopard  can  change  its  spots. 

If  Adam  could  have  created  by  his  own  acts  an 
independent  and  saving  righteousness  for  himself, 
then  he  might  have  transmitted  his  own  regener- 
ated state  to  his  children.  In  this  event  he  would 
have  been  his  own  savior,  and  that  by  works  of  the 
law. 

We  thus  see  how  Adam  could  originate  a  sinful 
nature  in  himself  by  disobedience,  and  how  he 
could  transmit  that  sinful  nature  to  his  children; 
also  see  why  he  could  not,  even  if  he  was  really 
regenerated,  transmit  that  regenerated  state  to  his 
progeny.  Because  the  natural  can  not  propagate 
the  supernatural.  This  is  the  all-sufficient  reason 
why  the  children  of  regenerated  parents  are  born 
unregenerate,  and  require  regeneration  just  as  the 
children  of  unregenerate  parents. 

The  divinely  ordained  law  of  heredity  transmits 
what  is  indigenous  to  the  mind,  but  not  what  is 
supernaturally  imparted  to  the  mind.  Hence,  all 
the  children,  both  of  regenerate  and  unregenerate 
parents,  are  the  children  of  wrath  by  nature,  or 
natural  generation,  and  all  may  become  the  chil- 
dren of  God  by  grace  or  regeneration. 

Nothing,  I  think,  is  gained  to  the  infant  world 
or  to  the  divine  administration  by  either  the  scheme 
of  Arminius  or  that  of  Limborch.  For,  while  it  is 
claimed  that  infants  are  born  in  a  saved  state,  yet 
it  is  conceded  that  they  generally,  if  not  invariably, 
fall  as  did  Adam,  and  require  to  be  saved  by  re- 
generation or  re-regeneration.  For,  beginning  ex- 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  67 

istence  in  a  saved  state,  if  they  ever  sin,  or  cease  to 
love  God  with  all  the  heart,  etc.,  they  become  un- 
saved and  require  to  be  re-saved  by  Christ. 

Of  course,  if  they  never  sin,  they  can  have  no 
consciousness  of  sin  and  no  consciousness  of  a 
change  of  state  in  relation  to  God,  and  seem  to  be 
as  truly  their  own  saviors  as  are  the  unfallen  an- 
gels. 

To  the  charge  that  the  child  seems  to  be  saved 
independently  of  Christ,  Limborch  makes  this 
reply: 

"He  is  their  Savior,  not  because  he  cleanses 
them  from  sin,  for  infants  are  incapable  thereof, 
but  because  he  delivers  them  from  death  [in  the 
resurrection]  which  they  derived  from  Adam  by 
natural  generation,  from  which  they  could  not  be 
freed  but  by  Jesus  Christ.  We  therefore  maintain 
that  children  dying  in  infancy  are  saved  not  by 
their  own  innocency,  but  by  the  redemption  of 
Jesus  Christ." 

This  answer  is  shrewd  enough,  but  is  subject  to 
many  objections,  only  a  few  of  which  will  be  here 
indicated. 

1.  It  seems  to  condition  the  activity,  if  not  the 
very  existence,  of  the  mind  upon  the  life  of  the 
body  which  savors  of  materialism. 

2.  It  makes  Christ  the  Savior  of  infants  because 
he  delivers  them  from  physical  death  in  the  resur- 
rection.    Well,  is  he  not  the  Savior  of  the  wicked 
in  the  same  sense,  if  there  is  a  resurrection  both  of 
the  just  and  of  the  unjust? 

3.  It  seems  to  imply  that  Christ  is  the  Savior  of 


68  REVIEW  OF 

infants  only  as  to  their  bodies,  but  the  Savior  of 
adults  both  as  to  soul  and  body. 

I  think  it  a  better  and  more  biblical  vindication 
of  the  divine  administration,  and  greatly  simplifies 
the  perplexing  question,  to  admit  outright  and 
flatly  that  infants  are  made  partakers  of  Adam's 
moral  corruption  (not  of  his  sinful  act)  by  natural 
generation,  and  that  they  are  saved  from  this  by 
becoming  partakers  of  Christ's  righteousness  in 
spiritual  regeneration. 

SECTION  \\,—John  Wesley1  s  views. 

"John  Wesley  was  reared  and  trained  under  the 
direct  influence  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England,  which  .  .  .  are  intensely  Au- 
gustinian,  both  in  origin  and  doctrine.  These  arti- 
cles he  believed  and  defended  with  his  character- 
istic conscientiousness  a  great  part  of  his  life.  .  .  . 
Accordingly  we  find  him  at  one  period  of  his 
career  asserting  these  views  as  unqualifiedly  as 
Augustine  or  Luther. ' ' 

In  answer  to  question  15,  ne  says: 

u  In  Adam  all  die — that  is,  (i)  Our  bodies  be- 
come mortal.  (2)  Our  souls  died — that  is,  were 
disunited  from  God,  and,  hence,  (3)  were  all  born 
with  a  sinful,  devilish  nature.  By  reason  whereof 
(4)  we  are  children  of  wrath,  liable  to  death  eternal. 
(Rom.  v.  18;  Eph.  ii.  3.)  Works  v.  195." 

"Mr.  Wesley  was  a  progressive  man.  He  made 
changes  slowly,  but  when  truth  presented  itself  to 
his  great  and  honest  heart,  he  embraced  it  though 
it  involved  radical  changes." 

"In  1784  Mr.  Wesley  prepared  a  '  Sunday  serv- 
ice,' especially  designed  for  the  Methodists  in  Amer- 
ica. In  this  he  abridged  the  thirty-nine  articles  to 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  69 

twenty-four,  and  made  many  and  great  changes 
both  in  these  and  in  the  office  of  baptism.  The 
ninth  article  of  the  thirty-nine,  which  became  the 
seventh  in  our  twenty-five,  he  cut  down  until  al- 
most every  vestige  of  Augustinian  phraseology  was 
eliminated.  .  .  .  Mr.  Wesley  abridged  it  until  it 
reads  thus  in  our  (Methodist  church)  seventh : 

' '  '  Original  sin  standeth  not  in  the  following  of 
Adam  (as  the  Pelagians  do  vainly  talk)  but  it  is  the 
corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man  that  natu- 
rally is  engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam, 
whereby  man  is  very  far  gone  from  original  right- 
eousness, and  of  his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil 
and  that  continually.'  " 

Remarks. — In  this  quotation  we  have: 

1.  A  distinct  recognition  of  original  sin,  or  cor- 
ruption of  humanity. 

2.  A  denial  that  it  consists  in  following  Adam 
as  Pelagians  affirm. 

3.  The  affirmation  that  it  is  transmitted  by  nat- 
ural generation. 

4.  That  every  man  is  very  far  gone  from  original 
righteousness. 

5.  That  man  because  of  his  natal  state  is  inclined 
to  evil  continually. 

Dr.  Miller,  in  his  ' '  Conflict  of  Centuries, ' '  inter- 
prets Wesley  to  mean  that  this  "original  sin,"  or 
corruption  of  nature  common  to  all,  is  not  of  the 
nature  of  sin.  If  it  is  not,  then  why  call  it  sin  of 
any  kind  ?  If  we  are  born  with  this  original  sin, 
which  inclines  us  to  evil  continually,  must  it  not 
be  removed  from  the  infant  in  order  to  give  it  a 
capacity  for  heaven,  or  for  loving  God  ? 


70  REVIEW  OF 

I  think  Mr.  Wesley  thought  so.  When  he  says 
nothing  is  sin  strictly  but  a  voluntary  transgression 
of  a  known  law  of  God,  he  speaks  of  actual,  out- 
ward transgression,  and  not  of  original  sin  or  cor- 
ruption of  nature  common  to  all  men.  If  he  be- 
lieved that  infants  need  a  change  of  nature  so  as  to 
be  inclined  not  to  evil  but  to  good,  then  his  two 
utterances  are  not  in  conflict,  but  if  he  believed 
that  infants  need  no  change  of  any  sort,  then  I  can 
not  harmonize  his  statements. 

SECTION  III. — Rev.  John  Fletcher's  views  of  the 
influence  of  atonement  iipon  men. 

If  I  understand  this  able  and  popular  author,  he 
saves  the  infant  not  by  its  own  personal  righteous- 
ness nor  innocence,  nor  by  regeneration  or  any 
change  of  its  moral  nature,  but  by  the  impartation 
of  Adam's  regenerated  nature  to  it.  The  following 
quotations  give  his  views.  He  says  (Checks,  Vol. 
I,  161): 

"  i.  The  Scriptures  tell  us  that  Christ  in  all 
things  hath  the  pre-eminence.  But  if  Adam  is  a 
more  public  person,  a  more  general  representative 
of  mankind  than  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  plain  that  in 
this  grand  respect  Adam  hath  the  pre-eminence 
over  Christ.  Now,  as  this  can  not  be,  as  Christ  is 
at  least  equal  to  Adam,  it  follows  that  as  Adam 
brought  a  general  condemnation  and  universal  seed 
of  death  upon  all,  so  Christ  brings  upon  them  a 
general  justification  and  a  universal  seed  of  life. 

"2.  I  never  yet  saw  a  Calvinist  who  denied  that 
Christ  died  for  Adam.  Now,  if  the  Redeemer  died 
for  our  first  parents,  he  undoubtedly  expiated  the 
original  sin — the  first  transgression  of  Adam.  And 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  71 

if  Adam's  original  sin  was  atoned  for  and  forgiven 
to  him  as  the  Calvinists,  I  think,  generally  grant, 
does  it  not  follow  that  though  all  infants  are  by 
nature  children  of  wrath,  yet  through  the  redemp- 
tion of  Christ  they  are  in  a  state  of  favor  or  justifi- 
cation ?  For  how  could  God  damn  to  all  eternity 
any  of  Adam's  children  for  a  sin  which  Christ  ex- 
piated? A  sin  which  was  forgiven  almost  six 
thousand  years  ago  to  Adam,  who  committed  it  in 
person  ? 

"3.  The  force  of  this  observation  would  strike 
our  Calvinistic  brethren,  if  they  consider  that  we 
were  not  less  in  Adam's  loins  when  God  gave  his  Son 
to  Adam  in  the  grand  original  gospel  promise  than 
when  Eve  prevailed  on  him  to  eat  the  forbidden 
fruit.  As  all  in  him  were  included  in  the  covenant 
of  obedience  before  the  fall,  so  all  in  him  were  like- 
wise interested  in  the  covenant  of  grace  and  mercy 
after  the  fall." 

Remarks. — These  statements  are  very  perspicu- 
ous, and  teach  with  sufficient  distinctness  the  fol- 
lowing points: 

1.  That  Adam  was  not  only  the  natural  head, 
but  also  the  covenant  representative  of  mankind; 
that  his  sin  ' '  brought  a  general  condemnation  and 
a  universal  seed  of  death  upon  all." 

2.  That  Christ  is  in  like  manner  a  representative 
of   all   represented   by  Adam,   and   ' '  brings  upon 
them  a  general  justification  and  a  universal  seed  of 
life." 

Here  it  is  plainly  taught  as  need  to  be  that  Adam 
by  virtue  of  his  representative  character,  brought 
condemnation  and  moral  corruption,  or  spiritual 
death,  upon  all  men;  and  that  Christ  by  virtue  of 


72  REVIEW  OF 

his  representative  character  brought  justification 
and  moral  purification  or  spiritual  life,  to  all;  or 
that  the  obedience  of  the  second  Adam  exactly  re- 
verses the  legal  and  moral  effects  of  the  disobedi- 
ence of  the  first. 

3.  The  principle  of  representation  here  set  forth 
is  identical  in  kind  with. that  taught  by  Augustine, 
but  differs  from  it  in  the  extent  of  its  application 
on  the  Christ  side — that  is,  the  first  Adam  repre- 
sented all,  and,  hence,  all  are  the  children  of  wrath; 
but  the  second  Adam  represented  only  a  part,  and, 
hence,  only  a  part  can  be  saved. 

4.  Fletcher  teaches,   as   do  Calvinists,   that   the 
atonement  infallibly  saves  in  one  sense  all  for  whom 
it  is  made.     This  he  does  when  he  says:  u  Now,  if 
the  Redeemer  died  for  our  first  parents,  he  undoubt- 
edly expiated  the  original  sin — the  first  transgres- 
sion." 

Calvinists,  when  they  assert  this  doctrine,  mean 
that  all  for  whom  Christ  died  will  be  necessarily 
and  eternally  saved;  but  Fletcher  means  that  Christ 
having  died  for  Adam,  he  undoubtedly  expiated  his 
sin,  and  that  his  posterity  are  consequently  born  in 
a  saved  state,  or  saved  from  the  effects  of  Adam's 
sin.  According  to  Augustinianism  all  infants  com- 
mence existence  in  a  state  of  spiritual  death,  but 
Christ  died  for  a  part  only,  and  all  these  will  neces- 
sarily be  saved.  According  to  Fletcher  all  infants 
commence  existence  in  a  state  of  spiritual  life.  If 
they  die  in  infancy  they  are  infallibly  saved.  If 
they  attain  to  accountability  they  may  lose  this 
spiritual  life  and  be  lost,  unless  they  repent  and  be- 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  73 

lieve  in  Christ.  In  this  event  they  are  twice  par- 
doned, first  seminally  and  then  personally.  This 
seems  to  require  that  the  obedience  of  the  second 
Adam  shall  more  than  offset  the  disobedience  of 
the  first,  which  somewhat  spoils  the  theory. 

According  to  one  scheme,  all  are  inevitably  saved 
that  God  intended  to  be  saved.  According  to  the 
other,  all  come  into  existence  in  a  saved  state,  but 
all  attaining  adult  age  rqay  be  lost  by  personal 
transgression. 

Both  schemes,  I  think,  comprise  some  vital  truths 
— both  some  radical  errors — both  rest  equally  upon 
legal  fictions,  or  conceptions  which  have  no  founda- 
tion in  facts;  both  regard  the  relation  between 
Adam  and  his  posterity  as  unique  and  legal,  or 
judicial,  and  both  regard  Christ's  death  as  affecting 

the  legal  state  of  millions  of  beings  before  they 
have  any  existence — thus  confounding  potentiality 
with  actuality.  This  is  to  deal  with  figments  as 
solid  facts.  I  always  existed  as  a  potentiality  in 
Adam,  and  Adam  in  the  Deity.  If  the  possible  and 
the  real  are  identical,  then  I  am  as  old  as  Adam, 
and  Adam  is  as  old  as  the  Deity.  The  reader  may 
furnish  many  other  illustrations  of  this  fallacy  if  he 
chooses. 

But  this  inveterate  realism  characterizes  and  vi- 
tiates all  the  schemes  of  soteriology  that  seek  to 
offset  the  demerit  of  one  act  by  the  merit  of  another 
act.  It  was  not  Adam's  unrighteousness  as  an 
entity,  apart  from  his  personality,  that  corrupted 
humanity,  but  Adam  himself.  It  is  not  Christ's 


74  REVIEW  OF 

righteousness  apart  from  Christ  that  saves  men,  but 
it  is  Christ  himself  that  saves. 

SECTION  IV. — Richard  Watson  on  the  effects  of 
atonement. 

Watson,  like  Wesley,  was  originally  a  fairly 
orthodox  Augustinian  in  his  views  of  original  sin, 
and  continued  so  during  the  greater  portion  of  his 
life  ;  at  least,  this  seems  to  be  a  fair  inference  from 
the  teachings  of  his  "Institutes."  His  opinions, 
however,  were  very  much  changed  in  favor  of  Ar- 
minianism. 

In  his  comment  on  Matthew  xix.  14,  having  ex- 
plained ' '  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  as  "  the  spirit- 
ual kingdom  of  Christ  on  earth,  and  also  that  glo- 
rious reign  of  God  over  redeemed  and  glorified  men 
in  a  future  world, ' '  he  says  : 

"  If  little  children  are  the  subjects  of  his  spiritual 
kingdom  on  earth,  then,  until  the  moment  that  by 
actual  sin  they  bring  actual  condemnation  upon 
themselves,  they  remain  heirs  of  eternal  glory;  and 
if  they  become  the  subjects  of  the  latter  by  dying, 
then  a  previous  relation  must  have  existed  upon 
earth  between  them  and  Christ  as  their  Redeemer 
and  Sanctifier." 

Remarks. — It  is  here  taught  by  fair  implication: 
(i)  That  children  are  born  in  vital  union  with  Christ, 
and  "remain  heirs  of  eternal  glory "  "until  the 
moment  that,  by  actual  sin,  they  bring  personal 
condemnation  upon  themselves." 

(2)  That  they  were  redeemed  and  sanctified  sem- 
inally,  or  as  potentialities  in  Adam,  or  before  they 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  75 

have  any  real  existence,  or  instantly  upon  their  na- 
tivity. 

(3)  That  they  may,  and  probably  always,  forfeit 
their  vital  union  with  Christ,  and  their  heirship  to 
eternal  glory  "by  actual  sin"  unless  they  die  in 
infancy.  If  they  do  bring  personal  condemnation 
upon  themselves,  then  they,  of  course,  must  be  re- 
redeemed,  or  re-delivered,  and  re-sanctified,  in  order 
to  their  salvation.  This  process  may,  of  course,  be 
indefinitely  repeated. 

Now,  I  submit  whether  it  would  not  be  better  to 
allow  that  children  are  not  born  in  vital  union  with 
Christ  and  heirs  of  eternal  glory  ;  that  they  are  not 
redeemed  (saved)  and  sanctified  thousands  of  years 
before  they  exist,  but  that  they  are  redeemed  from 
sinful  propensions  and  sanctified,  or  put  in  vital 
union  with  Christ  after  they  are  born.  If  Christ  is 
able  and  willing  to  redeem  them  from  sin  and  sanc- 
tify them  thousands  of  years  before  they  exist, 
surely  he  is  able  and  willing  to  do  so  after  they  are 
born. 

The  pre-natal  sanctification  and  redemption  of 
non-existent  beings  from  non-existent  sins  is  a  sub- 
ject hard  to  deal  with  in  a  satisfactory  way.  But 
the  sanctification  and  redemption  of  actually  exist- 
ent beings  from  actual  evil  is  far  less  difficult  of 
comprehension.  It  quite  perplexes  me  to  know 
how  God  could  feed  and  clothe  men  thousands  of 
years  before  they  exist,  and  equally  so  as  to  how 
he  can  sanctify  and  save  beings  before  they  exist. 
We  know  quite  well  that  thousands  of  years  ago 
God  did  provide  means  in  the  economy  of  nature 


76  REVIEW  OF 

by  which  he  feeds  and  clothes  men  as  they  come 
into  being  through  successive  generations,  and  it 
seems  not  at  all  unreasonable  that  he,  thousands 
of  years  ago,  made  provision,  in  the  economy  of  the 
moral  world,  by  which  he  sanctifies  and  saves  men 
as  they  come  into  being  through  successive  ages. 

NOTE. — Mr.  Watson  infers  that  children  are  "  in 
vital  union  with  Christ,"  and  .  .  .  heirs  to  eternal 
glory  from  the  fact  that  they  are  said  to  be  u  of  .  .  . 
the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

To  be  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  I  think  is  not 
necessarily  to  be  in  "vital  union  with  Christ." 
"The  kingdom  of  heaven,"  as  used  in  the  New 
Testament,  often,  perhaps  generally,  includes  not 
only  those  actually  saved,  but  those  in  a  salvable 
state.  The  words  are  about  equivalent  to  gracioiis 
dispensation,  or  Christ's  mediatorial  reign.  That 
all  in  the  kingdom  were  not  in  a  saved  state  is  quite 
clear.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  to  a  man  that 
sowed  good  seed  in  his  field,  but  an  enemy  sowed 
tares.  The  -wheat  and  the  tares  were  in  the  same 
field,  or  kingdom.  The  five  foolish  virgins  were 
in  the  kingdom.  The  man  not  having  on  a  wed- 
ding garment  was  in  the  kingdom.  It  is  not  safe  to 
say  that  all  in  the  kingdom  are  in  vital  union  with 
Christ. 

SECTION  V. — Dr.  darkens  views. 

Commenting  on  Matthew  xix.  14,  in  speaking  of 
little  children,  Dr.  Clarke  says  : 

"  A  great  part  of  God's  kingdom  is  composed  of 
such  literally;  and  those  only  who  resemble  little 
children  shall  be  received  into  it.  Christ  loves  little 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  77 

children    because    he    loves   simplicity   and   inno- 
cence. ' ' 

These  three  propositions  are  literally  true  ;  and 
Augustinians  would  have  no  hesitation  in  adopting 
them,  because  they  are  capable  of  explanation  in 
full  harmony  with  their  doctrine.  Nor  is  it  at  all 
certain  that  Dr.  Clarke  meant  to  teach  that  children 
are  born  without  a  sinful  nature.  Indeed,  he  else- 
where seems  to  teach  a  contrary  doctrine. 

Dr.  Clarke,  of  course,  believed  that  infants,  dying 
in  infancy,  are  saved ;  but  he  did  not  deny  their  de- 
pravity, "nor  do  I  think  he  intended  to  teach  that 
they  are  born  with  a  fitness  for  heaven. 

Commenting  on  Ps.  li.  5,  ' '  Behold,  I  was  shapen 
in  iniquity  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me, ' ' 
he  says : 

UA  genuine  penitent  will  hide  nothing  of  his 
state;  he  sees  and  bewails  not  only  the  acts  of  sin 
which  he  has  committed,  but  the  disposition  that 
led  to  those  acts.  He  deplores  not  only  the  trans- 
gression, but  the  carnal  mind  which  is  enmity 
against  God.  .  .  .  Notwithstanding  all  that  Grotius 
and  others  have  said  to  the  contrary,  I  believe  David 
to  speak  here  of  what  is  commonly  called  original 
sin;  the  propensity  to  evil  which  every  man  brings 
into  the  world  with  him,  and  which  is  the  fruitful 
source  whence  all  transgressions  proceed." 

He  adopts,  as  a  suitable  paraphrase  of  the  text, 
the  following  very  expressive  words  : 

"  As  my  parts  were  developed  in  the  womb,  the 
sinful  principle  diffused  itself  through  the  whole,  so 
that  body  and  mind  grew  up  in  a  state  of  corruption 
and  moral  imperfection. ' ' 


78  REVIEW  OF 

No  Augustinian,  I  think,  would  care  to  assert 
infant  depravity  more  vigorously  than  Dr.  Clarke 
has  here  done.  He  evidently  did  not  believe  that 
the  death  of  Jesus  Christ  prevented  the  transmission 
of  moral  defection  from  Adam  to  his  posterity. 

SECTION  VI. — General  statements  concerning 
Arminian  soteriology. 

From  this  very  brief  notice  of  these  distin- 
guished and  learned  authors  of  the  Arminian 
school,  we  are  able  to  see  with  some  degree  of  dis- 
tinctness wherein  they  agree,  also  disagree  with 
Augustinians  concerning  the  atonement  and  its 
actual  effects  upon  those  in  whose  interests  it  is 
provided. 

These  agreements  and  disagreements  the  reader 
can  note  for  himself. 

A  few  general  statements  may  be  allowed. 

i.  These  Arminian  authors  from  whose  writings 
I  have  quoted,  it  should  be  remembered,  especially 
the  earlier  of  them,  labored  under  serious  disad- 
vantages. Augustinianism  was  the  doctrine  of 
Luther  and  of  the  Reformers  generally;  also  of  the 
papal  Church,  at  least,  ostensibly.  To  oppose  it 
was  to  incur  condemnation  at  the  hands  of  the 
Protestant  clergy  generally;  to  subject  themselves 
to  no  small  degree  of  theological  odium;  to  incur 
persecution,  misrepresentation,  and  an  unenviable 
notoriety. 

This  is  the  common  heritage  of  those  whose  con- 
victions and  conscience  require  them  to  dissent 
from  the  popular  faith.  In  addition  to  all  this,  some 
of  them  had  been  reared  in  the  Augustinian  faith, 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  79 

and  could  not  be  reasonably  expected  at  once  and 
fully  to  free  themselves  from  their  inherited  opinions. 
This,  we  know,  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  achieve- 
ments of  the  human  mind. 

But  these  men,  good  and  great,  were  true  to  their 
convictions,  and  had  the  moral  heroism  to  defend 
them  at  whatever  disadvantage. 

That  they,  under  the  circumstances,  should  make 
no  mistakes — commit  no  errors  was  not  to  be  ex- 
pected. Not  to  do  so,  all  things  considered,  would 
have  been  marvelous. 

2.  In  some  things,    some  of  them,   I  think,  de- 
parted too  far  from  Augustinianism,  not  in  denying 
infant  reprobation,  limited  atonement,  and  ' '  irre- 
sistible  grace,"    but  in  denying  infant   depravity 
and  the  necessity  of  some  change  establishing  in 
them  a  tendency  to  love  God  (which  alone  qualifies 
for  heaven),  and   in   predicating  a  continuance  in 
a  saved  state  upon  human  works  —  making  such 
works  a  condition,  rather  than  the  fruit,  of  a  saved 
state. 

3.  In  some  things,  I  think,  some  of  them  did  not 
go  far  enough  from  Augustinianism.     (i)  In  assert- 
ing with  Augustinians,  as  some  of  them  do,  that 
Adam  was  some  sort  of  a  covenant  or  judicial  rep- 
resentative of  his  posterity,   other  than  as  other 
parents  are;  and  a  corresponding,  judicial,  and  rep- 
resentative   element   in   the   official    character    of 
Christ.     There  are,   I  think,  absolutely  no  substi- 
tutions with  double  imputation  in  the  sphere  of 
divine   law,   physical   or  moral.     (2)  In  agreeing, 


80  REVIEW  OF 

as  some  of  them  do,  with  Augustinians,  that  there 
is  some  sort  of  merit  in  penal  sufferings,  and  that 
Christ  suffered  penally,  as  a  substitute  for  men, 
they,  I  think,  greatly  erred. 

4.  The  reader  will  observe  that  there  is  by  no 
means    perfect   accord   in   doctrine  among    them. 
They,  perhaps,  agreed  better  in  what  they  denied 
than  in  what  they   affirmed.       This   diversity   of 
views  on  abstruse  and  important  questions  under 
the   circumstances,  was   unavoidable.     This  is  no 
disparagement  of  the  men,   or  of   their  churches. 
It  rather  evinces  their  candor,  independence,  and 
conscientiousness,  and  is,  therefore,  to  their  credit 
rather  than  discredit.     There  was  sufficient  accord 
of  opinion  to  justify  co-operation  and  achieve  suc- 
cess.    Arminianism  has  become  a  wonderful  power 
for  good. 

5.  The  reader  will  also  observe  that  these  writers 
generally,  including  Limborch,  who  had  a  stronger 
anti-Augustinian  tendency  than  Arminius,   admit 
that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  in  some  way  sub- 
stitutionary  and  penal.     These  several  schemes  of 
atonement  may,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  modifica- 
tions of  the  Anselmic  soteriology;   and  just  in  so 
far  as  they  are  substitutionary  and  penal  are  ob- 
noxious to  the  same  objections  that  lie  against  the 
Anselmic  scheme. 

Having  made  this  brief  statement  of  the  various 
schemes  of  soteriology,  and  criticised  some  of  their 
postulates,  I  now  propose  a  more  formal  examina- 
tion of  the  substitutionary  principle  and  its  defenses 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  81 

as  made  by  later  writers.  Of  those  who  hold  the 
substitutionary  scheme  in  its  less  inconsistent  form, 
Dr.  Charles  Hodge  may  be  considered  an  able — 
perhaps  the  ablest — representative.  For  this  reason 
his  presentation  of  the  subject  will  be  specially 
considered. 
6 


82  REVIEW  OF 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

SECTION  I. — Dr.  Charles  Hodge's  advocacy  of 
the  penal  theory  of  atonement  considered. 

Dr.  Hodge's  finished  scholarship,  eminent  abili- 
ties, and  life-time  devotion  to  theological  studies 
entitle  his  opinions  on  the  subject  of  soteriology  to 
profound  respect. 

In  his  Systematic  Theology  he  has  discussed  the 
subject  at  considerable  length,  and  with  marvelous 
skill.  His  presentation  and  defense  of  the  rigidly 
substitutionary  and  penal  theory  of  atonement  are 
superior  to  any  thing  I  have  seen.  The  presenta- 
tion is  so  specious,  its  hard  points  so  adroitly  dis- 
posed of,  that  many  whose  instincts  and  reason  re- 
coil at  the  doctrine  itself,  reject  it  without  profess- 
ing to  be  able  to  disprove  it. 

Perhaps  any  adverse  theory — any  theory  denying 
that  Christ's  death  was  penal  and  substitutionary — 
would  be  deemed  radically  defective  if  it  did  not  at 
least  indicate  some  method  of  escape  from  the  con- 
clusions which  Dr.  Hodge's  arguments  are  intended 
to  support.  We  can  not  believe  things  known  to 
be  contradictory.  Though  we  may  accept,  for  rea- 
sons which  we  deem  sufficient,  one  theory  without 
being  able  to  point  out  the  fallacies  of  an  opposite 
theory,  yet,  it  is  more  satisfactory  to  know  precise- 
ly wherein  the  rejected  theory  is  at  fault. 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  83 

It,  therefore,  seems  proper  that,  in  rejecting  the 
penal  theory,  so  ably  advocated  by  Dr.  Hodge,  I 
should  indicate  my  objections  to  his  arguments. 
Only  his  leading  positions  will  be  noticed,  and  this 
not  in  labored  detail,  but  in  the  briefest  manner 
compatible  with  clearness. 

Dr.  Hodge  adopts  the  following  statement  of 
Christ's  work,  given  by  Delitzsch  (Theo.  Vol.  II., 

P-  543): 

"If  a  man  keeps  in  view  our  desert  of  punish- 
ment, and  allows  the  three  saving  doctrines  of 
Scripture  to  stand  in  their  integrity,  namely: 

1.  That  God  made  Him  who  knew  no  sin  to  be 
sin  for  us — that  is,  imputed  our  sins  to  Him. 

2.  That  Christ,  although  free  from  guilt,  laden 
with  our  guilt,  was  made  a  curse  for  us — that  is, 
suffered  the  wrath  of  God  due  to  us;    or,  as  the 
Scripture  also  says,  that  God  executed  on  his  Son 
judgment  against  sin,  He  having  taken  upon  Him 
flesh  and  blood,  and  offered  Himself  as  a  sacrifice 
for  us  for  the  expiation  of  sin. 

3.  That  in  like  manner  his  righteousness  is  im- 
puted  to  believers,  so  that  we  may  stand  before 
God,  as  he  had  submitted  to  the  imputation  of  our 
sins,  in  order  to  their  expiation;  if  these  premises 
remain  unobliterated,  then  it  is  as  clear  as  the  sun 
that  Christ  suffered  and  died  as  our  substitute,  in 
order  that  we  need  not  suffer  what  we  deserved, 
and  in  order  that  we,  instead  of  dying,  should  be 
partakers    of    the    life    secured    by   his   vicarious 
death."  . 

This  is  a  fair  statement  of  the  theory;  and  to  its 
defense  Dr.  Hodge  addresses  himself  with  a  zeal,  a 
wealth  of  erudition,  and  a  fertility  of  invention 


84  REVIEW  OF 

seldom  surpassed.  He  knows  his  forces,  and  mar- 
shals them  with  consummate  skill;  and,  like  a 
good  strategist,  claims  a  sweeping  victory  in  every 
rencounter.  Never,  perhaps,  was  a  bad  cause  fa- 
vored with  a  more  gallant  defense.  Every  thing 
in  this  defense  is  admirable,  except  the  argument 
itself.  This,  I  think,  is  sadly  at  fault. 

Let  us  see  whether  there  is  sufficient  ground  for 
this  opinion. 

SECTION  II. — Dr.  Hodge  says  (Vol.  II.,  p.  468): 

"Expiation,  propitiation,  reconciliation,  and  in- 
tercession are  the  several  aspects  under  which  the 
work  of  Christ,  as  a  priest,  is  presented  in  the  word 
of  God." 

Comment. — I.  The  word  "expiation"  never  oc- 
curs in  the  Bible,  (old  version)  but  is  unfortunately 
introduced  into  the  new. 

2.  By  expiation  here  is  meant  exemption  from 
liability  to  punishment;    or  that   none  for  whom 
Christ  died  can  ever  perish.     This  contradicts  Rom. 
xiv.  15. 

3.  By  "reconciliation"  Dr.  Hodge  means  God's 
reconciliation  to  those  for  whom  Christ  made  expi- 
ation, and  not  man's  reconciliation  to  God.     This 
contradicts  Rom.  v.  10,  u;  2  Cor.  v.  18-20. 

4.  His  schemfe  is,  Christ's  death  procures  expia- 
tion^  expiation  procures  propitiation,   propitiation 
procures  God's  reconciliation  to  the  elect,  and  this 
reconciliation  insures  their  regeneration  and  pres- 
ervation to  everlasting  life.     (See  Vol.  II.,  p.  514.) 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  85 

SECTION  III. — Dr.  Hodge  objects  to  the  word 
atonement  "  to  express  the  work  of  Christ." 

1.  He  says  it  is  ambiguous.     He  says  (p.  469), 
' '  To  atone    is  properly  to  be,    or  cause  to  be,  at 
one. "      "In  this  sense  to  atone  is  to  reconcile. ' ' 
But  it  is  also  in  the  second  place,  used  to  express 
that  by  which  the  reconciliation  is  effected.     It  then 
means  satisfaction." 

Comment. — ' '  Satisfaction ' '  and  ' '  compensation, ' ' 
like  expiation,  are  extra-biblical ;  and  the  ideas  they 
are  intended  to  express  also  extra-biblical.  They 
smack,  too,  of  ' '  quid  pro  qrUo. ' ' 

2.  He  says : 

"Another  objection  to  its  general  use  is  that  it 
is  not  sufficiently  comprehensive.  As  commonly 
used  it  includes  only  the  sacrificial  work  of  Christ, 
and  not  his  vicarious  obedience  to  the  divine  law. 
The  atonement  of  Christ  is  said  to  consist  of  his 
suffering  and  death.  But  his  saving  work  includes 
far  more  than  his  expiatory  sufferings. ' ' 

Comment.  —  Our  author  objects  to  the  word 
atonement  because,  "as  commonly  used,"  it  does 
not  include  Christ's  "vicarious  obedience" — that 
is,  his  active  obedience  in  contradistinction  to  his 
passive  obedience,  so  called.  I  have  elsewhere  suf- 
ficiently exposed  this  inane  distinction  between 
"active  and  passive  obedience."  What  act  of 
Christ's  antemortem  life  was  vicarious,  or  was  per- 
formed in  the  place  of  any  one  else — much  less  of 
all  mankind,  and  which  has  been  set  to  their  credit  ? 
It  certainly  would  be  gratifying,  if  not  profitable, 
to  know  this. 


86  REVIEW  OF 

"But  his  ...  expiatory  sufferings?" — suffer- 
ings which  insure  all  for  whom  he  died  against  all 
penal  suffering?  Well,  Christ  never  endured  any 
such  suffering.  This  is  plain  from  reference  to 
Rom.  xiv.  15,  and  will  be  made  abundantly  plain 
in  this  discussion. 

3.  "A  third  objection  is  that  this  use  of  the  word 
atonement  is  a  departure  from  the  established  usage 
of  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation." 

Comment. — The  Reformers  used  the  word  to  in- 
clude expiation,  propitiation,  and  reconciliation.  In 
this  they  were  certainly  not  quite  exact.  The  Re- 
formers are  high  authority,  but  the  Bible  is  higher, 
and  in  the  use  of  this  word  modern  usage  is  nearer 
the  Bible  than  the  Reformers. 

In  the  Bible  this  word  is  always  used  in  the  sense  of 
propitiation — never  in  the  sense  of  expiation — rarely, 
if  ever,  in  the  sense  of  reconciliation.  (If  ever 
used  in  the  sense  of  reconciliation,  it  is  in  reference 
to  the  scapegoat — Lev.  xvi.)  Yet,  according  to  its 
generally  accepted  etymology,  its  literal  meaning  is 
reconciliation.  If  this  is  the  literal  meaning  of  this 
hybrid  word,  and  if_in  the  Bible  its  general,  if  not 
invariable,  meaning  is  propitiation,  as  is  elsewhere 
seen,  then  the  word  in  the  Bible  is  used,  not  in  its 
literal,  but  metonymical  sense — the  sequence  put 
for  its  antecedent — a  form  of  trope  of  frequent  oc- 
currence in  the  Bible.  This  view  of  the  subject  is 
strongly  favored,  if  not  conclusively  proved,  by  the 
significant  fact  that  the  word  atonement  never  oc- 
curs in  the  New  Testament  New  Version  at  all,  but 
is  replaced  by  the  word  .propitiation. 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  87 

Our  author  pithily  says,  "It  is  important  to  ad- 
here to  old  words,  if  we  would  adhere  to  old  doc- 
trines." In  this  I  heartily  concur,  and  for  this 
reason  I  protest  against  such  Bible  exotics  as  ' '  ex- 
piation, "  "  piacular, "  "  satisfaction, "  "  compensa- 
tion," "just  equivalent,"  etc.  These  words  have 
well-nigh  excluded  the  living  Christ  from  modern 
soteriology. 

SECTION  IV. — Dr.  Hodge  very  properly  discrim- 
inates between  debt  and  crime.  But  it  is  not 
believed  that  he  properly  characterizes  either  debt 
or  crime. 

He  says  (p.  476)  : 

' '  The  word  satisfaction  is  the  one  which  for  ages 
has  been  generally  used  to  designate  the  special 
work  of  Christ  in  the  salvation  of  men.  .  .  .  There 
are,  however,  two  kinds  of  satisfaction  which,  as 
they  differ  essentially  in  their  nature  and  effects, 
should  not  be  confounded.  The  one  is  pecuniary, 
or  commercial,  the  other  penal,  or  forensic.  When 
a  debtor  pays  the  demand  of  his  creditor  in  full,  he 
satisfies  his  claims,  and  is  entirely  free  from  any 
other  demands.  ...  It  is  a  simple  matter  of  com- 
mutative justice — a  quid  pro  quo — so  much  for  so 
much.  ...  It  matters  not  to  him  (the  creditor) 
by  whom  the  debt  is  paid — whether  by  the  debtor 
himself,  or  by  some  one  in  his  stead — because  the 
claim  of  the  creditor  is  simply  upon  the  amount 
due,  and  not  upon  the  person  of  the  debtor." 

Comment.  —  The  question  here  raised — as  to 
whether  "the  claim  of  the  creditor  is  simply  upon 
the  amount  due,"  or  "  upon  the  person  of  the  debt- 
or " — is  a  point  concerning  which  penalists  can  not 


88  REVIEW  OF 

agree  among  themselves.  Those  that  make  sin  a 
debt  place  the  obligation  upon  the  person  of  the 
debtor.  Those  denying  that  sin  is  a  debt  put  the 
claim  "  upon  the  amount  due."  Dr.  Hodge's  view 
seems  to  be  an  impracticable  one.  A  debt  implies 
both  a  debtor  and  a  creditor.  An  obligation  on  the 
part  of  the  former  implies  a  right  on  the  part  of 
the  latter.  The  right  of  the  creditor  is  personal, 
and  therefore  real,  but  the  obligation  "upon  the 
amount  due"  is  impersonal,  and  hence,  unreal,  For 
all  rights  and  obligations  are  personal .  Dr.  Hodge 
says  the  claim  is  "not  iipon  the  person  of  the 
debtor."  In  this  I  think  he  errs.  I  think  he  also 
errs  in  his  characterization  of  crime.  He  continues, 
"  In  the  case  of  crime  the  matter  is  different.  The 
demand  is  then  upon  the  offender.  He  himself  is 
amenable  to  justice." 

Comment. — Justice,  like  "the  amount  due,"  is 
an  impersonality,  to  which  a  person  can  not  be 
amenable. 

He  continues,  "  Substitution  in  human  courts  is 
out  of  the  question."  But  other  substitutionists 
contradict  this,  and  say  that  "substitution  is  a 
normal  provision  of  law. ' '  He  says  : 

"The  essential  point  in  matters  of  crime,  is  not 
the  nature  of  the  penalty,  but  who  shall  suffer. 
The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die.  And  the  penalty 
need  not  be,  and  very  rarely  is,  of  the  nature  of  the 
injury  inflicted.  All  that  is  required  is  that  it 
should  be  a  just  equivalent.  For  an  assault  it  may 
be  a  fine  ;  for  theft,  imprisonment ;  for  treason, 
banishment,  or  death." 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  89 

Comment. — Two  radical  errors,  common  to  all 
substitutionists,  may  here  be  noted,  both  of  which 
are  exposed  in  "Atonement  and  Law  Reviewed." 

The  tacit  assumption  that  divine  law  is  like 
human  law.  In  human  law  the  penalty  does  not 
grow  naturally  and  necessarially  out  of  the  offense, 
but  is  arbitrarily  and  judicially  determined  by  the 
law  maker.  This  is  a  radical  defect  in  all  criminal 
human  law;  for  the  penalty  may  never  be  in  exact 
accord  with  the  degree  of  guilt.  Of  a  thousand 
murders,  no  two  of  them  may  be  of  exactly  the  same 
degree  of  criminality,  yet  the  penalty  inflicted  upon 
all  is  exactly  the  same.  Omniscience  alone  is  com- 
petent to  put  the  punishment  in  exact  accord  with 
the  criminality. 

Most  substitutionists  formally  admit  subjective 
law — law  written  upon  the  heart — but  others  deny 
it  utterly,  and  affirm  law  in  commandment  only. 
But  those  that  formally  admit  subjective  law  logic- 
ally deny  it  when  they  assume  divine  law  to  be 
analogous  to  human  law,  which  is  necessarily  law 
in  commandment  only.  Especially  do  they  com- 
mit logical  suicide  when  they  admit  subjective  law, 
and  yet  assert  the  doctrine  of  substitution  with  in- 
variable "double  imputation."  Dr.  Hodge  is  sen- 
sible of  this  difficulty,  and  attempts  to  escape  it  by 
distinguishing  between"  reatus  culpce  and  reatus 
poencz,  to  which  attention  will  in  due  time  be 
given. 

Human  law  is  law  in  commandment  only.  Of 
such  law  only  can  it  be  said  that  "the  penalty  need 
not  be,  and  very  rarely  is,  of  the  nature  of  the  in- 


90  REVIEW  OF 

jury  inflicted."  Instead  of  "very  rarely"  Dr. 
Hodge  should  have  said  never.  Even  in  the  lex 
talionis — an  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth — 
there  is  only  an  external  similarity  between  the 
offense  and  its  penalty.  In  this  case,  as  in  all  other 
human  punishments,  the  penalty  is  judicially  fixed, 
and  does  not  come  necessarily  out  of  the  nature  of 
the  offense. 

I  do  not  know  exactly  what  is  meant  by  the 
words,  "the  injury  inflicted."  If  they  are  intended 
to  mean  an  injury  inflicted  by  the  offender  upon 
justice  or  God  the  idea  is  extravagant.  They  may 
be  intended  as  the  equivalent  of  the  words  offense 
committed. 

This  immutable  and  vital  truth  should  be  dis- 
tinctly apprehended  and  never  forgotten,  viz. :  that 
the  natural  penalties  of  all  divine  law — physical 
and  moral — are  determined  both  as  to  nature  and 
severity  by  the  nature  and  turpitude  of  the  offense. 
From  this  rule  there  is  no  departure.  Judicial  vis- 
itations form  no  exceptions.  They  are  extra-nat- 
ural, but  do  not  supersede  the  natural,  as  will  be 
elsewhere  seen. 

From  these  brief  statements  the  reader  can  not 
fail  to  see  that  our  author  fails  to  properly  charac- 
terize debt,  because  he  makes  it  obligation  upon  a 
thing  and  not  upon  a  person.  Also  fails  rightly 
to  characterize  crime  against  God's  law,  because  he 
predicates  of  it  what  is  true  only  of  crime  against 
human  law.  The  first  error  is  of  small  conse- 
quence; the  second  is  of  immense  significance,  as 
we  shall  see. 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  91 

Dr.  Hodge  continues : 

"Another  important  difference  between  pecuni- 
ary and  penal  satisfaction  is  that  the  one  ipso  facto 
liberates.  The  moment  the  debt  is  paid  the  debtor 
is  free,  and  that  completely.  No  delay  can  be  ad- 
mitted, and  no  conditions  can  be  attached  to  his 
deliverance.  But  in  the  case  of  the  criminal,  as  he 
has  no  claim  to  have  a  substitute  take  his  place,  if 
one  be  provided,  the  terms  on  which  the  benefits  of 
the  substitution  shall  accrue  to  the  principal  ~  are 
matters  of  agreement  or  covenant  between  the  sub- 
stitute and  the  magistrate  who  represents  justice." 

Comment. — 1.(  It  is  one  of  the  absurdities  of  the 
substitutionary  theory  that  many  of  the  elect,  whose 
sins  Christ,  it  is  claimed,  has  fully  expiated,  are 
permitted  or  rather  necessitated  to  pass  a  large  part 
(possibly  the  whole)  of  life  in  sin  and.  suffering 
as  murderers,  liars,  ,  thieves,  libertines,  etc.  Dr. 
Hodge's  explanation  may  do  credit  to  his  polemic 
abilities,  but  seems  to  me  to  bear  hard  on  "the 
contracting  parties."  (See  page  360.)  That  the 
Father  and  the  Son  who,  in  "the  stipulations  of 
the  compact ' '  into  which  they  entered,  should  by 
covenant  leave  the  elect,  whom  God  "loved  with  a 
peculiar  and  discriminating  love,"  to  sin  and  suffer 
in  this  manner,  is  unreasonable  if  nothing  worse. 
The  mystery  becomes  the  more  appalling  when  we 
remember  the  relation  between  God  and  these  neg- 
lected elect  ones.  That  relation,  according  to  our 
author,  is  this:  Christ  has  obeyed  the  law  both  pre- 
ceptively  and  penally,  and  expiated  their  sins — that 
is,  released  them  from  liability  to  punishment. 
God  is  propitiated  toward  them,  is  reconciled  to 


92  REVIEW  OF 

them,  and  is  actually  bound  by  covenant  (p.  362) 
"to  renew  their  hearts,  to  satisfy  and  comfort  them, 
and  to  qualify  them  for  his  service  and  kingdom." 
But  why  this  terrible  tardiness  in  fulfilling  these 
covenant  promises?  Is  God  "slack  concerning  his 
promises  ? ' '  Well,  they  ' '  are  matters  of  agreement 
or  covenant  between  the  substitute  (Christ)  and  the 
magistrate  who  represents  justice"  (God)!  The' 
reader  will  not  fail  to  remember  that  "the  wages 
of  sin  is  death,"  and  that  "to  be  carnally  minded 
is  death,"  and  that  these  unregenerated  elect  ones 
are  carnally  minded,  and  are  actually  enduring  the 
wages,  the  penalty  of  sin;  and  yet,  according  to  Dr. 
Hodge,  their  sins  are  actually  expiated — that  is, 
they  are  released  from  punishment,  Christ  having 
been  punished  for  them. 

2.  Our  author  says:  "The  moment  the  debt  is 
paid  the  debtor  is  free,  and  that  completely. ' '  This 
I  heartily  indorse.  But  when  he  says  the  case  of 
the  criminal  is  different  in  regard  to  time  of  deliv- 
erance, I  beg  to  dissent. 

Dr.  Hodge  says :  ' '  The  deliverance  of  the  offender 
may  be  immediate,  unconditional,  and  complete." 
This  seems  eminently  just  and  proper.  But  he 
continues,  "or  it  may  be  deferred,  suspended  on 
certain  conditions,  and  its  benefits  gradually  be- 
stowed." This  delay  seems  unjust,  and  without 
any  reason  except  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the 
theory. 

Now,  why  should  the  debtor  be  released  the  in- 
stant his  debt  is  paid?  Simply  because  there  is  no 
claim  against  him.  The  act  of  paying  ipso  facto 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  93 

releases.  Then  why  is  not  the  "criminal  "  in  like 
manner  released  the  instant  justice  receives  "ple- 
nary satisfaction"  for  his  guilt?  "A  just  equiva- 
lent," it  is  said,  has.  been  received.  There  is  then 
absolutely  nothing  against  him.  Every  principle 
of  right  and  honor  requires  his  instant  release,  as 
truly  so  in  the  case  of  the  criminal  as  of  that  of  the 
debtor.  Justice  having  received  plenary  satisfac- 
tion, has  no  more  right  to  delay  release  an  instant 
than  the  creditor  has  to  demand  a  thousand  dollars 
more  than  is  due  on  his  bond.  This'is  too  plain  to 
admit  debate. 

Suppose  A  is  sentenced  by  the  court  to  ten  years 
in  the  penitentiary  for  crime,  and  faithfully  serves 
out  his  time,  and  the  State  official  should  detain 
him  in  prison  one  or  five  years  longer,  would  this 
be  just  or  honorable  ?  Would  not  the  State  or  its 
officials  be  liable  for  damages,  and  would  not  any 
court  in  Christendom  allow  damages?  Suppose  A 
is  condemned  to  be  hung  till  dead,  and  B  on  the 
scaffold  proposes  to  become  his  substitute  (the  law 
consenting),  and  actually  is  hung  till  dead,  and  the 
State  authorities  should  refuse  to  release  A,  or  rather 
actually  hang  him  some,  would  not  the  law  receive 
more  than  its  due  ?  and  is  it  not  as  great  an  outrage 
for  justice  to  receive  more  than  its  due  as  to  receive 
less  ? 

Tt  may  also  be  pertinently  said  that  if  the  regen- 
eration of  some  of  the  elect  is  delayed  through  long 
years  of  sinning  and  spiritual  death,  by  covenant 
stipulations  between  the  High  ' '  contracting  par- 
ties," then  it  follows  necessarily,  either  that  justice 


94  REVIEW  OF 

receives  more  than  is  just,  or  that  Christ  did  not 
render  plenary,  but  only  partial  satisfaction  to 
justice,  and  the  elect  rebel  is  required  to  suffer  his 
own  punishment  in  part,  and  thus  complete  the  in- 
complete work  of  his  substitute.  It  also  follows 
that  Christ  died  more  for  some  of  the  elect  than  for 
others.  This,  perhaps,  is  no  more  incomprehensible 
than  is  Dr.  Hodge's  assumption  that  Christ  "died 
unequally"  for  the  elect  and  reprobate.  These  are 
only  a  part  of  the  logical  difficulties  that  beset  Dr. 
Hodge's  characterization  of  criminality  and  its  ex- 
piation. 

SECTION  V. — Substitutionists  have  great  trouble 
in  satisfying  one  another  as  to  the  kind  and  degree 
of  suffering  that  was  necessary  on  the  part  of  Christ 
to  satisfy  justice  in  behalf  of  men.  The  household 
seems  to  be  hopelessly  divided  against  itself. 

1.  Some  teach  that  his  suffering  was  the  same, 
both  in  kind  and  degree,  as  that  to  which  all  men 
are  liable.     This,  though  perhaps  the  most  revolt- 
ing, is  the  least  inconsistent  of  all  substitutionary 
schemes.       The    essential    idea   of    substitution    is 
sameness,  both  as  to  kind  and  degree.     If  I  engage 

o  o     o 

a  man  to  take  my  place  in  any  affair,  and  he  does 
not  do  both  as  to  kind  and  degree  what  I  am  re- 
quired to  do,  he  is  in  no  proper  sense  my  substitute. 
This  is  too  plain  to  require  discussion. 

But  this  view  of  the  suffering  of  the  sinless 
Christ  is  so  abhorrent  to  our  instincts  that  it  is  very 
seldom  asserted. 

2.  Some  hold  that  Christ  suffered  in  degree,  but 
not  in  kind  what  all  for  whom  he  died  would  have 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  95 

suffered  in  time  and  eternity.  This  is  not  substitu- 
tion in  any  proper  sense.  If  I  am  required  by  law 
to  do  a  particular  thing,  and  engage  another  man  to 
do  it  in  my  place,  and  he,  instead  of  doing  it,  does 
an  equal  amount  of  other  work,  he  does  not  act  the 
part  of  a  substitute;  nor  will  the  law  release  me. 
If,  however,  the  governor  choose  to  accept  what  is 
actually  done,  in  lieu  of  what  I  am  required  to  do, " 
then  this  is  a  matter  of  sovereign  prerogative,  and 
not  of  law  or  justice.  Hence,  it  is  manifest  that  if 
the  elect  world  is  required  by  justice  to  do  one  thing, 
and  Christ  does  another  thing,  and  God  accepts  what 
he  does  in  lieu  of  what  they  are  required  to  do,  then 
the  atonement  is  not  a  matter  of  justice,  but  of  sov- 
ereign prerogative.  But  atonement  by  sovereign 
prerogative  is  ' '  the  holy  horror ' '  of  the  less  incon- 
sistent substitutionists. 

3.  Another  school  of  substitutionists  deny  that 
Christ's  sufferings  were  the  same  either  in  kind  or 
degree  with  those  to  which  the  elect  would  be  liable; 
but  allege  that  these  sufferings  were  "a  just  equiv- 
alent," of  equal  value,  and,  therefore,  "a  real  satis- 
faction," "a  plenary  satisfaction  to  justice."  Dr. 
Hodge,  I  think,  should  be  regarded  as  the  peerless 
champion  of  this  theory.  He  shall  speak  for  him- 
self. He  says  (p.  471,  et  seq.): 

"All  .  .  .  that  the  Church  teaches  when  it  says 
that  Christ  satisfies  divine  justice  for  the  sins  of  men, 
is  that  what  he  did  and  suffered  was  a  real  adequate 
compensation  for  the  penalty  remitted  and  the  ben- 
efits conferred.  His  sufferings  and  death  were  ade- 
quate to  accomplish  all  the  ends  designed  by  the 


96  REVIEW  OF 

punishment  of  the  sins  of  men.  He  satisfied  jus- 
tice. He  rendered  it  consistent  with  the  justice  of 
God  that  the  sinner  should  be  justified.  But  he 
did  not  suffer  either  in  kind  or  degree  what  sinners 
would  have  suffered.  In  value  his  sufferings  infin- 
itely transcended  theirs.  The  death  of  an  eminent- 
ly good  man  would  outweigh  the  annihilation  of  a 
universe  of  insects.  So  the  humiliation,  sufferings, 
and  death  of  the  eternal  Son  of  God  immeasurably 
transcended  in  worth  and  power  the  penalty  whieh 
a  world  of  sinners  would  have  endured. ' ' 

"It  was  an  act  of  pure  grace  that  God  arrested 
the  execution  of  the"  penalty  of  the  law,  and  con- 
sented to  accept  the  vicarious  sufferings  and  death 
of  his  only  begotten  Son." 

Comment. — i.  As  a  scheme  claiming  to  be  vica- 
rious, this  is  farther  removed  from  real  substitution 
than  those  previously  noticed.  It  can  be  called 
substitutionary  only  by  courtesy.  It  is  rather 
atonement  by  sovereign  prerogative  than  by  substi- 
tution. God  ' '  consented  to  accept, ' '  etc.  To  con- 
sent is  an  act  of  will,  of  sovereign  prerogative,  and 
not  of  abstract  justice.  In  this  scheme  the  will  is 
dominant,  both  as  to  the  kind  and  degree  of  suffer- 
ing, and  justice  is  made  subordinate,  and  is  content 
to  receive  just  what  sovereign  prerogative  chooses 
to  give;  and  yet  Christ's  death  is  a  satisfaction  to 
justice! 

2.  Some  of  the  ideas  expressed  in  the  last  quota- 
tion seem  to  call  for  a  brief  notice. 

(i)  That  what  Christ  "  did  .  .  .  was  a  real  adequate 
compensation  for  ...  the  benefits  conferred. "  It 
will  be  remembered  that  Dr.  Hodge  makes  Christ's 
"active  obedience"  so  called,  constitute  a  part  of 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  97 

the  atonement.  To  this  he  here  refers.  But  this 
doctrine  is  in  conflict  with  Rom.  v.  18.  "  Through 
one  act  of  righteousness  the  free  gift  came  unto  all' 
men."  Compensation?  To  whom  or  what ?  Can 
God  receive  compensation  ?  Can  an  impersonal 
thing  like  justice? 

(2)  That  what  Christ  .  .  .  "suffered  was  a  real 
adequate  compensation  for  the  penalty  remitted." 
Compensation  in  penalty  ?  If  penalty  endured  by 
a  substitute  compensates  God,  or  justice,  or  any 
thing  else,  then,  of  course,  it  can  do  no  less  when 
endured  by  the  principals. 

Hence,  it  inevitably  follows  that  Satan  and  his 
hosts  are  compensating  God  or  justice  for  all  their 
sins.  It  is  so  plain  as  scarcely  to  need  saying  that 
there  is  no  merit,  no  power  ill  penalty  to  compen- 
sate any  thing.  When  pain  comes  to  have  the 
power  of  removing  its  cause,  then  penalty  may  ex- 
piate guilt  or  take  away  guilt. 

3.  In  the  next  sentence  our  author  teaches  that 
the  end   of   punishment  is  to  satisfy  justice?     It 
scarcely  needs  to  be  said  that,  if  such  is  its  design, 
it  utterly  fails  of  its  end.     This  is  sufficiently 'dem- 
onstrated elsewhere. 

4.  "He  rendered  it  consistent  with  the  justice  of 
God  that  the  sinner  should  be  justified." 

If  Christ's  penal  sufferings  render  it  consistent 
with  the  justice  of  God  that  sinners  should  be  jus- 
tified, do  not  the  penal  sufferings  of  the  fallen  an- 
gels or  any  one  else  have  the  same  power  ?  Surely 
penalty  can  not  be  more  efficacious  in  the  substi- 
tute than  in  the  principal.  Certainly  God  can  be 
7 


98  REVIEW  OF 

just  in  justifying  all  those  who  through  faith  in 
Christ  are  made  partakers  of  his  righteousness;  but 
hot  in  justifying  all  for  whom  Christ  died.  If  this 
were  so,  I  hesitate  not  to  say  universalism  would 
be  true.  Dr.  Hodge  understands  the  text  to  which 
he  alludes  (Rom.  iii.  25)  to  teach  that  Christ's  suf- 
ferings constitute  the  propitiation,  and  hence,  that 
it  is  what  Christ  has  done  that  expiates  sin  and  in- 
sures the  salvation  of  the  elect.  But  the  text  does 
not  say  this*  nor  mean  it.  On  the  contrary  it  makes 
Christ  himself  the  propitiation,  or  propitiatory. 
Nowhere  in  the  Bible  is  Christ's  sufferings  or  death 
called  a  propitiation,  but  Christ  himself  is  the  pro- 
pitiation; or  it  is  not  what  Christ  has  done  that 
saves  us,  but  Christ  himself. 

See  Rom.  iii.  25;  i  John  ii.  2;  iv.  10. 

5.  That  the  penal  theory  of  atonement  logically 
expiates  all  sin  may  be  further  shown  by  the  fol- 
lowing facts: 

It  is  laid  down  as  a  fundamental  law  that  there 
can  be  no  pardon  without  punishment.  Dr.  Hodge 
quotes  with  approbation  (and  often  re-affirms  it)  the 
following  from  Ebrard  (p.  477): 

' '  Guilt,  as  we  know,  can  be  removed  only  by 
punishment.  Either  the  sinner  himself  must  bear 
the  punishment,  or  a  substitute  must  be  provided 
to  assume  the  guilt  and  bear  the  punishment,  and 
thus  freedom  from  guilt,  or  righteousness,  be  secured 
for  the  offender. ' ' 

Dr.  Hodge  says: 

"This  is  the  fundamental  idea  of  atonement  or 
satisfaction.  .  And  this  is  the  essential  idea  of 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  99 

the  doctrine  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  as  it  is  pre- 
sented in  the  Scriptures." 

Comment. — It  is  here  announced  as  a  universal 
principle  (i)  That  penal  suffering  is  the  basis,  and 
only  basis,  of  pardon,  or  that  there  can  be  no  par- 
don without  antecedent  punishment. 

(2)  That  penal  suffering  is  equally  efficacious  in 
securing  freedom  from  guilt,  whether  endured  by 
the  principal  offender  or  by  his  substitute. 

Now,  it  is  a  most  marvelous  thing  that  good  and 
great  men  who  advocate  this  principle  of  expiation 
can  not  see  that  it  of  necessity  expiates — blots  out 
— takes  away  the  unrighteousness  of  Satan  and  all 
other  rebels  in  the  moral  world,  and  actually  in- 
vests them  with  righteousness  commensurate  to  the 
claims  of  justice  or  the  divine  law,  and  necessarily 
insures  their  salvation. 

All  this  is  so  plain  as  scarcely  to  require  com- 
ment. I  need  only  here  indicate  a  few  points.  If 
there  is  no  pardon  without  punishment,  then  there 
is  no  punishment  without  pardon;  just  as  we  may 
say,  there  can  be  no  effect  without  a  cause,  so  there 
can  be  no  cause  without  effect.  It  is  not  meant 
that  punishment  and  pardon  are  convertible  terms, 
any  more  than  that  cause  and  effect  are  convertible 
terms,  but  that  punishment  to  the  full  satisfaction 
of  justice  insures  the  pardon.  Hence,  there  can  be 
no  punishment  without  a  resulting  pardon,  just  as 
there  can  be  no  cause  without  an  effect,  for  what 
produces  no  effect  is  not  a  cause. 

But,  according  to  the  doctrine,  punishment  may 
be  endured  either  by  the  principal  or  by  a  substi- 


ioo  REVIEW  OF 

tute,  and  it  is  just  as  efficacious  in  one  as  the  other. 
Hence,  if  Christ's  penal  sufferings  as  a  substitute 
satisfies  justice  and  procures  pardon,  so  does  Satan's 
penal  sufferings  satisfy  justice  and  secure  pardon  for 
himself,  and  so  of  every  other  sinner. 

SECTION  VI.  —  Penalists  have  serious  trouble 
among  themselves  as  to  the  particular  character  of 
Christ's  sufferings.  They  all  agree  that  the}-  were 
penal — inflicted  on  him  as  a  punishment  of  the  sins 
of  men;  but  what  is  included  in  this  penalty  is  not 
agreed.  Dr.  Hodge  gives  what  he  deems  the  most 
satisfactory  solution  of  the  difficult  problem. 

He  says  (p.  474): 

"The  words  penal  and  penalty  do  not  designate 
any  particular  kind  or  degree  of  suffering,  but  any 
kind  or  any  degree  which  is  judicially  inflicted  in 
satisfaction  of  justice.  The  word  death,  as  used  in 
Scripture  to  designate  the  wages  or  reward  of  sin, 
includes  all  kinds  and  degrees  of  suffering  inflicted 
as  its  punishment.  By  the  words  penal  and  penalty, 
therefore,  we  express  nothing  concerning  the  nature 
of  the  sufferings  endured,  but  only  the  design  of 
their  infliction."  "  We  only  say  on  the  one  hand 
that  his  sufferings  were  neither  mere  calamities  nor 
chastisements  designed  for  his  own  benefit,  nor 
merely  dogmatic,  or  symbolical,  or  exemplary,  or 
the  necessary  attendants  of  the  conflict  between 
good  and  evil;  and  on  the  other  hand  we  affirm 
that  they  were  designed  for  the  satisfaction  of  jus- 
tice. He  died  in  order  that  God  might  be  just  in 
justifying  the  ungodly." 

Comment. — This,  instead  of  being  a  clear  and 
satisfactory  solution,  seems  to  me  to  imperil  all 
forms  of  atonement — refuses  to  say  more  than  "that 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  101 

Christ's  sufferings  were  penal,"  and  "were  designed 
for  the  satisfaction  of  justice,"  and  were  so  not  be- 
cause of  their  nature,  but  only  because  they  were 
designed  to  be  so. 

(i)  The  "words  penal  and  penalty  do  not  desig- 
nate any  particular  kind  or  degree  of  suffering,  but 
any  kind  or  degree  which  is  judicially  inflicted  in 
satisfaction  of  justice."  Or,  "their  character  as 
penal  depends  not  on  their  nature,  but  on  their  de- 
sign. ' '  Hence,  ' '  the  very  same  kind  and  amount  of 
suffering  may  in  one  case  be  a  calamity;  in  another 
a  chastisement;  in  another  a  punishment."  This 
clearly  denies  any  necessary  connection  between  sin 
and  the  character  of  its  punishment;  also  between 
the  degree  of  guilt  and  the  degree  of  punishment. 
It  also  makes  the  punishment  of  sin  not  a  matter 
of  inflexible  justice,  but  purely  of  will — of  sovereign 
prerogative. 

Now,  this  may  be  accepted  as  substantially  true 
of  human  governments  and  punishments,  but  of  all 
divine  law  and  penalties  it  is  fearfully  false. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  penalties  affixed  to  human 
laws  are  of  necessity  arbitrary,  temporary,  and  judi- 
cial, having  no  necessary  connection  with  the  of- 
fense; but  in  divine  government  the  punishment  is 
determined,  both  as  to  kind  and  degree,  by  the 
offense.  In  the  sphere  of  divine  law,  physical  and 
moral,  like  produces  like,  in  relation  to  sin  and  its 
penalties,  as  it  does  in  relation  to  parent  and  prog- 
eny. But  according  to  our  author,  the  kind  and 
degree  of  penal  suffering  is  determined,  not  by  its 
nature,  but  by  its  design;  justice  requires  the  pun- 


102  REVIEW  OF 

ishment,  but  the  offense,  in  no  sense,  determines 
the  kind  and  degree  of  the  punish  men  t.  These 
are  judicially  determined  by  the  administrator,  and 
are  administered,  not  by  natural  but  by  supernat- 
ural providence.  The  punishment  comes  not  nec- 
essarily out  of  the  abnormal  state  of  the  offender, 
but  as  a  judicial  act  of  God,  just  as  the  punishment 
of  the  murderer  comes  from  the  hands  of  the  hang- 
man; or  sin  and  punishment  are  not  causally,  but 
only  contingently  related. 

Holding  such  views  of  punishment,  Dr.  Hodge 
is  not  inconsistent  with  himself  in  asserting  that 
Christ  did  not  suffer  either  in  kind  or  degree  what 
men  would  have  suffered;  nor  is  he  inconsistent 
with  himself  in  holding  that  ' '  God  arrested  the  ex- 
ecution of  the  law,  and  consented  to  accept  the 
vicarious  suffering  and  death  of  his  only  begotten 
Son."  He  is,  however,  in  violent  conflict  with 
the  Bible,  and  reason  as  well,  in  both  these  partic- 
ulars. 

(2)  According  to  the  theory,  any  suffering,  phys- 
ical or  mental,  may  be  a  calamity,  or  a  chastise- 
ment, or  a  punishment,  just  as  God  designs  it. 
Hence,  the  suffering  of  a  substitute  need  not  be 
the  same  in  kind  with  that  of  the  principal,  for 
one  kind  is  just  as  adequate  to  satisfy  justice  as  an- 
other, if  God  designs  it  as  such ;  or  whatever  suffer- 
ing God  designs  as  a  satisfaction  of  justice  is  an 
adequate  satisfaction.  This,  the  reader  will  not  fail 
to  see,  makes  penalty  purely  a  matter  of  will,  and 
not  of  justice  at  all.  Hence,  it  logically  follows 
that  if  God  chose  to  do  so,  he  could  save  the  elect 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  103 

by  a  decree  or  act  of  will  without  any  atonement  at 
all. 

If  God  had  designed  it  any  suffering,  physical  or 
mental,  possible  to  Christ,  would  have  been  an 
adequate  satisfaction  to  justice.  The  only  reason 
why  his  suffering,  consequent  upon  his  forty  days 
fast,  did  not  satisfy  justice  for  all  the  world,  is  that 
God  did  not  design  it.  If  he  had  been  a  galley- 
slave,  or  a  hod-carrier,  his  suffering  under  such 
labors  would  have  been  adequate  to  satisfy  justice, 
if  God  had  so  designed,  for  ' '  their  character  as 
penal  depends  not  on  their  nature,  but  upon  their 
design. ' ' 

(3)  Another  fatal  consequence  of  the  doctrine 
' '  that  the  very  same  kind  and  amount  of  suffering  . 
may  in  one  case  be  a  calamity;  in  another  a  chas- 
tisement; in  another  a  punishment,"  is  that  justice 
is  minimized,  dwarfed,  and  practically  reduced  to 
zero.  Justice  demands  penal  satisfaction  for  sin. 
But  any  suffering,  becomes  penal  only  by  design, 
and  any  kind  and  amount  is  an  adequate  satisfaction 
if  it  is  designed  to  be  so.  Now,  what  necessarily 
follows  ?  Thus :  To  ' '  design ' '  is  purely  an  act  of 
will,  or  sovereign  prerogative.  An  act  of  will  may 
substitute  one  kind  of  punishment  for  another,  and 
one  degree  for  another;  rather,  the  will,  irrespective 
of  justice,  fixes  both  the  degree  and  kind  of  punish- 
ment that  must  be  endured  by  unsaved  sinners,  and 
which  must  be  accepted  as  "a  real  adequate  satisfac- 
tion to  justice,"  and  then  substitutes  a  punishment 
for  Christ  different  in  kind  and  less  in  degree  than 
that  fixed  for  sinners.  This  Dr.  Hodge  clearly 


I04  REVIEW  OF 

teaches.  In  this  change  the  claims  of  justice  are 
set  aside,  and  it  must  accept  as  a  real  adequate  sat- 
isfaction whatever  sovereign  prerogative  may  happen 
to  give.  This  does  not  quadrate  with  the  Anselmic 
idea  of  justice. 

Now,  it  is  a  self-evident  proposition  that  the 
right  to  substitute  one  kind  and  one  amount  of 
punishment  for  another  is  the  right  to  set  aside 
punishment  altogether,  and  to  save  the  sinner 
without  any  atonement,  or  expiation,  or  satisfaction 
to  justice. 

The  right  to  take  my  house  for  half  value  with- 
out my  consent  is  the  right  to  take  it  for  nothing. 
The  right  to  relax  is  the  right  to  abrogate  law. 
'  (4)  If  it  should  be  said  that  God's,  infinite  per- 
fection gives  an  infallible  guaranty  that  he  will 
always  do  right,  and  that  his  designs  or  purposes 
will  always  be  in  the  strictest  accord  with  justice, 
I  cordially  accept  all  this  as  true,  and  rejoice  in  it. 
But  according  to  Dr.  Hodge  it  is  not  true.  God 
fixed  the  kind  and  amount  of  penalty  proper  to  the 
sins  of  the  elect.  This  kind  and  amount  of  pen- 
alty were  in  exact  accord  with  justice.  But  when 
God  accepted  Christ  as  the  substitute  "of  his  peo- 
ple," he  changed  the  penalty  materially  both  as  to 
kind  and  amount.  If  the  penalty  as  fixed  for  sin- 
ners was  just,  then  of  necessity  the  penalty  as  fixed 
for  their  substitute  was  unjust.  If  the  latter  was 
just,  then  the  former  was  unjust.  Dr.  Hodge's 
theory,  take  it  as  we  will,  makes  God  unjust,  if  the 
atonement  was  made  primarily  to  satisfy  justice. 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  105 

(5)  Another  perplexity  arising  out  of  our  author's 
doctrine  perhaps  should  be  noticed.     He  says: 

' '  The  word  death,  as  used  in  Scripture  to  desig- 
nate the  wages  or  reward  of  sin,  includes  all  kinds 
and  degrees  of  suffering  inflicted  as  its  punish- 
ment." 

Of  course  every  kind  and  degree  of  suffering  is 
either  penal  or  it  is  not.  It  can  not  be  both ;  yet 
our  author  seems  to  make  it  both.  His  theory  of 
Adamic  sin  requires  him  to  make  absolutely  all 
suffering  penal;  but  his  theory  of  Christ's  suffering 
requires  him  to  inake  some  suffering  only  a  calam- 
ity or  non-penal,  and  some  penal,  according  as  God 
designs  it  for  one  or  the  other.  The  design,  we  are 
informed,  makes  all  the  difference,  and  this  differ- 
ence affects  God  alone,  and  not  the  sufferer;  it  mat- 
ters not  a  particle  with  him  whether  his  suffering 
is  a  calamity  or  a  punishment.  If  I  burn  your 
house,  the  effect  to  you  is  the  same  whether  my 
design  was  malice,  or  revenge,  or  plunder,  or 
any  thing  else.  I  alone  am  affected  by  the  design. 
If  the  "character"  of  sufferings  "depends  not  on 
their  nature,  but  on  their  designs,"  then  it  does  not 
matter  a  particle  whether  a  man's  sufferings  are 
calamities,  chastisements,  or  punishments.  The 
sufferings  of  Christ  and  of  Judas  as  to  themselves 
were  exactly  the  same;  their  sufferings  differed  only 
as  to  God — that  is,  in  his  designs. 

(6)  Our  author  very  much  confuses  "calamity" 
and  "punishment."     He  says:  "The  word  death, 
as  used  in  Scripture  to  designate  the  wages  or  re- 
ward of  sin,  indicates  all  kinds  and  degrees  of  suf- 


io6  REVIEW  OF 

fering  inflicted  as  its  punishment."  The  proposi- 
tion might  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  all  suffering 
is  penal,  or  to  mean  that  some  is  not  penal.  He 
expresses  himself  more  clearly  elsewhere,  saying 
(p.  1 20): 

' l  The  wages  of  sin  is  death ;  .  .  .  therefore  death 
must  include  not  only  all  the  miseries  of  this  life 
and  the  dissolution  of  the  body,  but  also  all  that  is 
meant  by  spiritual  and  eternal  death. ' ' 

The  doctrine,  here  and  elsewhere  taught  is,  that 
all  suffering  of  which  men  are  the  subjects — physi- 
cal and  mental — is  strictly  and  exclusively  a  pun- 
ishment of  sin.  Why,  then,  does  he  say : 

"Suffering  without  any  reason  of  its  occurrence 
is  calamity;  if  inflicted  for  the  benefit  of  the  suf- 
ferer, it  is  chastisement;  if  for  the  satisfaction  of 
justice  it  is  punishment.  The  very  same  kind  and 
amount  of  suffering  may  in  one  case  be  a  calamity, 
in  another  a  chastisement,  in  another  a  punish- 
ment?" 

The  answer  is,  he  thus  classifies  suffering  so  as  to 
justify  himself  in  saying  that  the  value  of  Christ's 
sufferings  depended   ' '  not  upon  their  nature,  but 
upon  their  design. ' '     The  strategy  is  bold  but  in- ' 
volves  him  in  contradiction. 

To  say  that  all  suffering  is  a  punishment  of  sin, 
and  then  classify  sufferings  as  calamities,  chastise- 
ments, and  punishments  is  glaringly  illogical.  It 
makes  a  thing  differ  from  itself.  It  is  to  say  that 
calamity  is  a  punishment,  and  yet  differs  radically 
from  a  punishment.  Truth  is  not  self-contradic- 
tory. 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  107 

I  do  not  object  to  the  classification  of  human  suf- 
ferings as  calamities,  chastisements,  and  punish- 
ments. The  radical  error  lies  in  the  Augustinian 
assumption  that  all  human  suffering  is  a  punish- 
ment of  sin — sin  in  the  person  of  the  sufferer — a 
conceit  repudiated  alike  by  reason  and  revelation. 


io8  REVIEW  OF 


CHAPTER  IX. 

SECTION  I. — Reatus  culptz  et  reatus  p 
Dr.  Hodge  says  (p.  476): 

"The  word  guilt  .  .  .  expresses  the  relation 
which  sin  bears  to  justice,  or,  asvthe  older  theolo- 
gians said,  to  the  penalty  of  the  law.  The  relation, 
however,  is  twofold. 

First,  that  which  is  expressed  by  criminality  and 
ill-desert,  or  demerit.  This  is  inseparable  from  sin. 
It  can  belong  to  no  one  who  is  not  personally  a  sin- 
ner, and  it  permanently  attaches  to  all  who  have 
sinned.  It  is  not  removed  by  justification,  much 
less  by  pardon.  It  can  not  be  transferred  from  one 
person  to  another. 

But,  secondly,  guilt  means  the  obligation  to  sat- 
isfy justice.  This  may  be  removed  by  the  satisfac- 
tion of  justice  personally  or  vicariously.  It  may  be 
transferred  from  one  person  to  another,  or  assumed 
by  one  person  for  another.." 

On  page  188,  et  seq.,  we  have  the  same  doctrine 
given  at  greater  length.  I  will  cite  only  a  few  sen- 
tences: 

"  The  guilt  of  our  sins  is  said  to  have  been  laid 
upon  Christ — that  is,  the  obligation  to  satisfy  the 
demands  of  justice  on  account  of  them.  .  .  .  When 
a  man  has  been  punished  his  liability  to  justice  or 
obligation  to  the  penalty  of  the  law  ...  is  re- 
moved. It  would  be  unjust  to  punish  him  a  sec- 
ond time  for  that  offense.  ,  This  distinction 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY. 


109 


theologians  are  accustomed  to  express  by  the  terms 
reatus  culp<z  and  reatus  poencs.'1'1 

Comment. — This  distinction  as  to  different  phases 
of  guilt  is  deemed  of  vital  importance  to  the  substi- 
tutionary  scheme  of  atonement.  It  is  supposed  to 
show  how  a  sinner's  liability  to  punishment  may  be 
transferred  to  another,  while  his  criminality  still 
remains  his  own,  and  to  thus  remove  the  apparent 
absurdity  of  saying  that  guilt  in  the  sense  of  crimi- 
nality may  become  the  guilt  of  another.  It  is  cer- 
tainly shrewd  but  not  satisfactory. 

1.  It  discriminates'  between  pardon  and  justifica- 
tion. The  idea  seems  to  be  that  the  sinner  is  pardoned 
when  Christ  became  his  substitute,  but  is  not  justi- 
fied until  he  believes.     Pardoned  from   eternity — 
justified  in  time.     This  brings  no  relief,  for  it  is  as 
easy  to  justify  as  it  is  to  pardon  a  sinner  from  eter- 
nity.    The  Bible  makes  no  such  distinction.     Nor 
can  we  have   any  clear  conception  of  a  difference 
between  a  divine  act  in  pardoning  and  such  an  act 
in  justifying  a  sinner  forensically.     If  they  are  dif- 
ferent, then  there  are  two  legal  divine  acts,  sepa- 
rated by  indefinite  time,  and  yet  conditioned  one  upon 
the  other,  and  infallibly  insuring  the  one  the  other. 

2.  "Guilt  means  the  obligation  to  satisfy  jus- 
tice."    This  is  impracticable  realism,  dealing  with 
the  abstract  as  with  the  concrete — with  conceptions 
as  with  realities. 

Guilt  has  no  existence  except  as  a  state  of  the 
mind,  and  justice  exists  only  as  a  quality  in  mind. 
Both  are  impersonal,  and  for  this  reason  alike  in- 
capable of  ' '  obligation ' '  and  ' '  satisfaction. ' '  Our 


IIO  REVIEW  OF 

author  means  that  suffering  satisfies  justice.  Now, 
if  guilt  can  be  obligated,  and  can  discharge  that 
obligation  by  suffering,  and  justice  can  be  satisfied 
by  that  suffering,  then  guilt  and  penalty  are  lifted 
wholly  above  the  sphere  of  the  real  into  the  sphere 
of  the  abstract,  and  have  no  existence  except  as 
mental  conceptions.  Why  not  deal  with  sin  and 
its  consequent  suffering  in  a  common  sense  practi- 
cal way,  as  we  deal  with  other  stern  realities  ? 

I  should  much  prefer  to  say  that  the  guilty  sin- 
ner is  subject  to  punishment.  It  is  not  his  guilt 
that  is  punished  but  the  sinner  himself  because  of 
his  guilty  or  abnormal  state.  Suppose  that  I 
should  say,  "Sickness  from  poison  means  obliga- 
tion to  satisfy  the  laws  of  health,"  what  would 
physicians  think  of  me?  And,  suppose  I  should 
duplicate  the  absurdity  by  saying  that  the  suffering 
produced  by  sickness  cures  or  removes  the  sickness, 
as  penalists  say  suffering  removes  its  cause,  how 
long  could  I  escape  the  asylum  ? 

Penalists  have  been  led  into  such  absurdities 
largely  by  attempting  to  construct  the  moral  gov- 
ernment of  God  after  the  models  of  human  govern- 
ment, whereas  the  true  analogies  of  the  moral  gov- 
ernment are  found  in  the  government  of  the  phys- 
ical world;  because  God  is  the  law-maker  and  ruler 
in  the  physical  world  in  a  sense  in  which  he  is  not 
in  human  governments. 

3.  ' '  This  [guilt]  may  be  removed  by  the  satisfac- 
tion of  justice  personally  or  vicariously."  The 
logical  correlate  of  this  proposition  saves  every  sin- 
ner in  the  universe;  Satan  and  his  hosts  not  ex- 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  in 

cepted.  How  is  this?  Thus:  " Guilt  in  the  sense 
of  reatus  poence  may  be  removed  by  the  satisfaction 
of  justice."  Suffering  alone  satisfies  justice  and 
releases  from  reatus  poence.  Christ  rendered  this 
satisfaction  for  the  elect.  Satan  and  all  other  sin- 
ners render  it  personally  each  for  himself.  Hence, 
just  as  Christ's  suffering  satisfied  justice  and  re- 
leased the  elect  from  the  reatus  poence— liability  to 
punishment — exactly  so,  and  in  an  equally  satisfac- 
tory manner,  do  the  personal  sufferings  of  Satan 
and  others  satisfy  justice  and  release  them  from  rea- 
tus poence, 

This  releases  Satan  and  every  other  sinner  from 
liability  to  punishment  exactly  in  the  same  sense 
as  does  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  release  the  elect. 
This  satisfaction  by  personal  suffering  is  in  every 
way  just  as  perfect  as  that  rendered  by  Christ,  for, 
if  this  is  not  the  case,  then  justice  never  gets  its 
due,  nor  can  it  help  itself ;  for  it  is  the  only  satis- 
faction it  can  ever  receive. 

Hence,  we  have  all  rebeldom  released  from  the 
reatus  poence,  or  liability  to  punishment. 

Now,  let  us  look  after  the  reatus  culp&,  or  guilt 
in  the  sense  of  ' '  criminality, "  "  ill-desert, "  ' '  de- 
merit, "  u  moral  pollution. ' ' 

It  is  the  uniform  teaching  of  Augustinians  that 
those  for  whom  Christ  made  expiation  are  infallibly 
saved — that  is,  the  removal  of  the  reatus  poence  in- 
fallibly secures  the  removal  of  the  reatus  culpce. 
Dr.  Hodge  says  (p.  472): 

'  *  When  a  ransom  is  paid  and  accepted,  the  deliv- 
erance of  the  captive  is  a  matter  of  justice.  So,  in 


ii2  REVIEW  OF 

the  case  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  justice  de- 
mands the  salvation  of  his  people.  That  is  his  re- 
ward. .  .  .  What  reason  can  there  be  for  the  in- 
infliction  of  the  penalty  for  which  satisfaction  has 
been  made  ? ' ' 

Hence,  it  follows  from  the  strictest  logical  neces- 
sity, that  just  as  Christ's  substitutionary  penal 
suffering  removed  the  reatus  poencs  of  the  elect, 
and  thereby  infallibly  insures  the  removal  of  their 
reatus  culp&\  so  the  personal  penal  sufferings  of 
Satan  removes  his  reatus  poence  and  thereby  in- 
fallibly removes  his  reatus  culpce. 

The  argument  may  be  differently  stated: 

Penal  suffering  removes  reatus  poencs. 

Satan's  sufferings  are  penal.  Therefore,  Satan's 
reatus  poence  is  removed. 

Justice  requires  the  removal  of  the  reatus  culpce 
of  all  those  whose  reatus  poence  has  been  removed 
by  penal  suffering. 

Satan's  reatus  poence  is  removed  by  penal  suffer- 
ing. Therefore  justice  requires  the  removal  of  Sa- 
tan's reatus  culpce. 

If  this  argument  is  in  any  respect  unsound  I  con- 
fess my  inability  to  see  it,  and  would  be  grateful  to 
any  one  for  indicating  its  fallacy.  But,  if  the  logic 
is  sound,  and  if  the  doctrine  of  penal  satisfaction 
upon  which  it  is  founded  is  true,  then  Satan  and 
all  rebeldom  have  a  guaranty  of  salvation  founded 
upon  immutable  justice. 

4.  Certainly  there  is  an  appreciable  distinction 
between  criminality  and  penality,  between  moral 
corruption  and  punishment,  and  we  may  indicate 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  113 

this  difference  by  the  technical  forms,  reatus  ciilpce 
and  reatus  poence,  if  we  choose.  But  it  must  be 
remembered  that  though  they  are  logically  distinct 
they  are-  both  logically  and  chronally  inseparable. 
Criminality  involves  liability  to  punishment,  and 
punishment  presupposes  criminality. 

Of  course  there  is  no  objection  to  the  distinction 
itself,  but  grave  objection  to  the  order  and  manner 
of  relationship  between  criminality  and  penality  as 
held  by  substitutionists. 

(i)  As  to  the  order  of  relation  between  crime  and 
penalty,  it  seems  superfluous  to  say  that  they  are 
related  as  cause  and  effect,  or  as  antecedent  and 
consequence,  and  that  crime  is  the  antecedent  and 
punishment  the  consequence.  Hence,  no  crime,  no 
punishment.  To  take  away  the  criminality  is  to 
take  away,  or  rather  to  prevent,  the  punishment 
To  remove  the  disease  is  to  relieve  the  pain  which 
it  produces. 

But  substitutionists  reverse  this  natural  order  of 
the  relation  between  crime  and  punishment,  mak- 
ing the  removal  of  the  reatus  poetics  antecedent  to 
the  removal  of  the  reatus  culpcs — that  is,  exemption 
from  punishment  is  the  antecedent  of  deliverance 
from  criminality. 

Hence,  the  sinner  is  pardoned,  released  from  all 
liability  to  penal  suffering,  when  Christ  became  his 
substitute,  but  is  left  in  his  criminal  and  polluted 
state;  morally  corrupt,  but  not  liable  to  the  di- 
vinely ordained  consequence  of  his  corruption!  At 
enmity  against  God,  yet  not  liable  to  the  conse- 
quences of  that  state  of  enmity.  Such  a  state  of 


n4  REVIEW  OF 

things,  it  is  self-evident,  is  impossible  in  the  sphere 
of  either  physical  or  moral  law.  It  would  be  pos- 
sible only  in  the  sphere  of  human  law,  and  possi- 
ble here  only  because  of  the  inherent  weakness  of 
human  law.  Thus,  a  man  commits  a  malicious 
murder,  is  indicted  and  tried  by  the  proper  court; 
but,  by  the  bribery  or  death  of  witnesses,  or  by 
corrupting  the  court,  he  procures  a  verdict  of  ac- 
quittal, and  is  set  free.  This  verdict  operates  as  a 
barrier  against  subsequent  prosecution  and  punish- 
ment. This  is  exactly  the  state  in  which  substitu- 
tionary  satisfaction  puts  all  for  whom  Christ  died. 
His  death  absolutely  delivers  from  reatus  poente, 
but  leaves  them  in  the  meshes  of  reatus  culp<z, 
from  which,  however,  they  are  at  some  indefinite 
time  to  be  wholly  or  in  part  relieved. 

If  this  is  the  method  of  the  ' '  divine  govern- 
ment," then,  well  may  we  regard  the  "Great 
Atonement ' '  as  the  ' '  Great  Exception, ' '  and  despair 
of  ever  harmonizing  "  Reason  and  Revelation." 

(2)  The  manner  of  the  relation  between  crimi- 
nality and  penality  is  as  objectionable  as  is  the  or- 
der of  their  relationship  as  held  by  substitutionists. 
Men  are  delivered  from  the  liability  of  punishment 
when  Christ — a  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world — became  their  substitute.  But  these 
men  are  born  and  become,  possibly,  as  hardened  in 
sin  as  a  long  life  may  allow  them,  before  they  are 
delivered  from  criminality. 

This  view  not  only  reverses  the  natural  order  of 
cause  and  effect,  as  we  have  just  seen,  but  absolutely 
separates  them  by  an  indefinite  period  of  time. 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  115 

Such  separation  is  possible  only  in  the  sphere  of 
human  law.  Because  of  defects  of  human  law  the 
criminal  may  escape  penalty  for  a  longer  or  shorter 
period,  or  may  never  be  judicially  punished  at  all. 
This  possibility  results  from  the  fact  that  the  penal- 
ties of  human  law  are  purely  arbitrary — are  fixed 
by  judicial  authority,  and  have  no  necessary  con- 
nection with  the  crime.  The  punishment,  if  it 
comes  at  all,  comes  from  without,  and  through  the 
agency  of  other  minds.  Hence,  the  penalty  for  the 
same  offense  is  now  this,  now  that — in  one  State 
one  thing,  and  in  another  something  different,  ac- 
cording to  the  judgments  or  whims  of  the  law- 
givers. 

But  it  is  not  so  in  divine  law.  Criminality  and 
penalty,  as  I  have  often  said,  are  causally  connected, 
the  latter  growing  naturally  out  of  the  former, 
and  is  determined  by  it  as  the  stream  comes  from 
the  fountain,  by  which  its  character  is  determined. 
God  has  immutably  fixed  this  relation  between 
criminality  and  penalty,  and  no  power  short  of  om- 
nipotence can  separate  them.  But  God  does  not 
ordain  laws  in  the  realms  of  matter  or  mind  to  re- 
voke or  modify  them  on  occasion.  Hence,  the  only 
possible  method  of  escape  from  penalty  is  to  get  rid 
of  the  criminality  that  produces  it. 

To  do  this — to  condemn  sin — to  destroy  sin — to 
take  away  sin — was  the  grand  mission  of  the  Son 
of  God.  This  he  does,  not  by  suffering  its  penal- 
ties, certainly,  for  this  would  give  sin  and  Satan  the 
completest  possible  triumph,  but  by  a  radically  dif- 
ferent method,  as  will  be  elsewhere  explained. 


u6  REVIEW  OF 

SECTION  II. — It  deserves  also  to  be  stated  that 
crime  and  penalty  in  the  sphere  of  all  divine  law 
are  strictly  co-inceptive  and  conterminous.  Though 
logically  distinct,  and  related  as  antecedent  and  se- 
quence, yet  they  take  origin  together,  and  if  the 
criminality  is  never  removed  the  punishment  is 
necessarily  endless.  But  the  effect  continues  no 
longer  than  its  cause.  This  is  so  because  the  pen- 
alty inheres  in  the  criminality  and  comes  necessarily 
out  of  it,  just  as  all  effects  inhere  in  their  causes, 
and  come  naturally  and  necessarily  out  of  them. 

This  is  the  character  of  punishment  in  the  sphere 
of  natural  providence,  which  in  no  way  conflicts 
with  punishment  by  supernatural  providence,  as 
will  be  presently  seen. 

If  these  statements  are  true,  how  unreasonable  it 
is  to  represent  the  great  merciful  Law-giver,  who 
ordained  law  for  the  conservation  of  the  world,  as 
"suspending  the  law,"  "  modifying  the  law,"  u  re- 
laxing the  law  by  sovereign  prerogative,"  etc. 

Even  so  great  and  learned  a  man  as  Dr.  Hodge 
speaks  in  this  way.  He  says  (p.  471,  et  seq.): 

"  It  was  an  act  of  pure  grace  that  God  arrested 
the  penalty  of  the  law."  This  refers  to  Adam's 
sin,  and  assumes  that  God  on  that  occasion  arrested 
the  penalty  affixed  to  the  prohibition.  I  should  say 
there  was  no  arrest  of  penalty  on  that  occasion,  or 
any  other.  If  God  can  arrest  the  natural  penalties 
which  he  has  ordained  and  established  on  one  oc- 
casion, he  can  on  all  occasions;  if  for  one  year,  then 
forever.  This  would  reduce  the  physical  and  the 
moral  world  to  chaos. 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  117 

"  In  the  day  them  eatest  thereof  them  shalf  surely 
die."  I  venture  to  affirm  that  the  threatened  pen- 
alty was  instantly  inflicted  without  any  arrest  or 
modification,  exactly  in  the  sense  in  which  God  in- 
tended, and  Adam  understood  it.  God  is  not  slack 
concerning  his  promises  or  threatnings,  as  some 
men  count  slackness. 

The  death  intended  was  the  natural  and  God-or- 
dained consequence  of  the  sin  which  inhered  in  it. 
I  have  elsewhere  and  repeatedly  defined  penalty  of 
any  divine  law  to  be  the  forfeiture  or  loss  of  the 
good  which  the  law  is  intended  to  conserve.  If 
this  is  true,  how  is  it  possible  to  transgress  God's 
laws,  and  yet  escape  the  penalties  he  has  wisely  af- 
fixed to  transgression?  How  can  I  hate,  and  yet 
escape  the  consequences  of  not  loving,  as  the  law 
imperatively  requires  me  to  do  ? 

If  it  should  be  said  that  all  things  are  possible 
with  God,  and  that  he  can  arrest  natural  law,  or 
set  aside  penalties;  that  he  stopped  the  mouths  of 
lions,  quenched  the  violence  of  fire,  etc. 

Certainly  all  things  that  involve  no  contradiction 
are  possible  with  God.  He  did  preserve  Daniel 
among  the  lions,  and  the  Hebrew  children  from  the 
violence  of  fire;  but  he  set  aside  no  law,  arrested 
no  penalty.  He  is  represented  as  having  in  many 
instances  been  turned  away  from  a  purpose  to  pun- 
ish judicially  special  sins,  but  I  call  to  mind  no  in- 
stance of  the  suspension  or  arrest  of  natural  penalty. 
[This  subject  will  be  further  considered  in  the  fol- 
lowing section.] 

Dr.  Hodge,  as  a  pronounced  substitutionist,  holds 


n8  REVIEW  OF 

to  ^^separability  of  crime  and  penalty.      He  says 
(p.  49o,^j*?.): 

"The  justice  of  God  is  revealed  in  his  works. 
(a)  In  the  constitution  of  our  nature.  The  connec- 
tion between  sin  and  misery  is  so  intimate  that 
many  have  gone  to  the  extreme  of  teaching  that 
there  is  no  other  punishment  of  sin  but  its  natural 
effects.  This  is  contrary  to  fact  as  well  as  to  Script- 
ure. Nevertheless,  to  be  *  carnally-minded  is  death,' 
that  is,  damnation.  There  is  no  help  for  it.  It  is 
vain  to  say  God  will  not  punish  sin,  when  he  has 
made  sin  and  its  punishment  inseparable.  The 
absence  of  light  is  darkness;  the  absence  of  life  is 
death.  (K)  It  is,  however,  not  only  in  the  constitu- 
tion of  our  nature,  but  also  in  his  works  of  prov- 
idence that  God  has  revealed  his  purpose  to  punish 
sin.  The  deluge;  the  destruction  of  the  cities  of 
the  plain,  .  .  .  are  proof  enough  that  God  is  an 
avenger,  that  he  will  in  nowise  spare  the  guilty." 

Comment. — The  harmony  of  these  statements 
with  others,  and  even  among  themselves,  is  not 
very  apparent. 

i.  We  have  the  admission  of  punishments  of 
sin  as  natural  effects,  an  instance  of  which  is  "  to 
be  carnally-minded  is  death — that  is,  damnation. ' ' 

This,  I  think,  is  exactly  true.  "Damnation," 
then,  is  a  natural,  and  not  a  contra-natural  prov- 
idence. But  our  author  says  it  "is  contrary  to  fact 
as  well  as  to  Scripture"  to  say  "that  there  is  no 
other  punishment  of  sin  but  its  natural  effects,  " 
and  names  the  deluge  and  many  other  events  as 
proof  of  his  assertion.  Here  things  radically  dif- 
ferent are  confounded,  and  confusion  follows.  You 
can  not  fail  to  perceive  quite  a  difference  between 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  119 

the  ' '  death — that  is,  damnation  ' ' — which  is  the  effect 
of  carnal-mindedness,  and  the  death  produced  by 
the  deluge.  One  was  the  death  of  the  soul;  the 
other  of  the  body.  One  came  from  within — from 
the  state  of  the  mind;  the  other  from  without — 
from  the  clouds.  The  one  involved  continuous 
suffering;  the  other  only  a  transient  suffering.  One 
is  a  necessary  consequence  of  a  violation  of  divine 
law  as  a  concreation  of  the  mind  itself,  or  a  natural 
providence;  the  other,  a  contingent  punishment,  in 
no  sense  conditioned  upon  the  state  of  the  mind, 
but  an  arbitrary  visitation  for  a  specific  administra- 
tive purpose  or  a  supernatural  providence.  They 
are  not  commutable,  they  do  not  exclude  one  the 
other,  nor  does  one  presuppose  or  involve  the 
other.  Things  so  radically  different  should  be 
broadly  distinguished.  This  may  be  done  by  des- 
ignating one  as  natural,  because  it  is  the  natural 
consequence  of  sin;  the  other  judicial,  because  it  is 
arbitrarily  inflicted  for  specific  purposes.  Both  are 
equally  from  God,  but  are  inflicted  on  different 
grounds,  and  by  different  processes. 

Dr.  Hodge  seems  to  refer  spiritual  death  to  nat- 
ure, and  the  deluge  to  providence.  This  is  an  inad- 
equate view  of  the  subject.  God  is  as  truly  uin 
nature,"  though  not  "of  nature,"  as  he  is  "over 
nature."  He  was  as  truly  the  creator  of  Cain  as 
he  was  of  Adam,  though  the  processes  in  these  cre- 
ations were  radically  different.  I  protest  against 
this  distinction  between  nature  and  providence  as 
unbiblical  and  unreasonable. 

2.  I  do  not  clearly  see   how  the  assertion  that 


120  REVIEW  OF 

God  "has  made  sin  and  its  punishment  insepara- 
ble, ' '  can  be  reconciled  with  the  assertion  ' '  that 
God  arrested  the  penalty  of  the  law ' '  in  reference 
to  Adam's  sin,  or  the  often  reiterated  assertion  that 
Christ  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  the  place 
of  men.  If  natural  death  was  any  part  of  the  pen- 
alty of  Adam's  sin,  and  God  arrested  that  death  for 
nine  hundred  years,  it  seems  that  ' '  sin  and  its  pun- 
ishment [are  not]  inseparable." 

If  Christ  suffered  the  punishment  of  the  sins  of 
the  elect  thousands  of  years  before  they  were  born, 
it  does  not  appear  to  be  true  that  God  ' '  has  made 
sin  and  its  punishment  inseparable. ' '  How  hard  it 
is  for  men  even  of  the  most  brilliant  powers  to 
make  error  consistent  with  itself !  I  heartily  con- 
cur with  Dr.  Hodge  when  he  says  that  God  ' '  has 
made  sin  and  its  punishment  inseparable;"  but 
can  not  agree  with  him  when  he  says  God  arrested 
the  execution  of  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  relation 
to  the  first  human  sin,  or  when  he  says  that  Christ 
suffered  the  penalty  in  the  place  of  men  thousands 
of  years  before  they  are  born.  To  do  this  would  be 
to  affirm  and  deny  the  same  thing. 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  121 


CHAPTER  X. 

SECTION  I. — Appeal  to  the  Bible. 

If  the  Bible  teaches  the  doctrine  of  a  penal  atone- 
ment, then,  of  course,  it  must  be  accepted  as  true, 
for  from  its  decisions  there  is  no  appeal.  With  all 
due  deference  to  Dr.  Hodge's  superior  learning  and 
ability,  I  must  be  allowed  to  say,  that,  instead  of 
taking  his  theory  from  the  obvious  teaching  of  the 
Bifce,  he  interprets  the  Bible  by  the  requirements 
of  his  theory.  Thoroughly  believing  his  doctrine 
to  be  true,  he,  of  course,  must  at  all  hazards  make 
the  Bible  support  it.  In  doing  this  he,  I  believe, 
takes  undue  liberty  with  many  texts  of  Scripture. 
I  think  no  text  is  intended  to  teach  it,  and  none 
can  be  made  to  teach  it,  without  a  misinterpreta- 
tion, or  misapplication,  or  illicit  inference  from  it. 
Like  other  substitutionists,  he  uses  but  few  texts, 
but  claims  the  sanction  of  the  whole  Bible. 

He,  of  course,  cites  those  that  seem  most  favor- 
able to  his  views,  and  disposes  of  those  that  seem 
to  oppose  it  in  a  sufficiently  cavalier  manner.  He, 
as  do  penalists  generally,  assumes  that  Christ  could 
not  dieyfrr  men  in  any  other  way  than  in  their  place 
or  stead.  He  consequently  interprets  the  whole 
Levitical  law  in  regard  to  sacrifices  as  proof  of 
penal  substitution,  or  interprets  it  by  Isaiah  liii., 
and  in  this  way  proves  his  substitution  by  the  con- 


i22  REVIEW  OF 

current  testimony  of  the  law  and  the  prophets. 
This  testimony  will  be  elsewhere  examined. 

He  makes  reference  to  some  New  Testament 
texts,  which  he,  however,  generally  disposes  of  dog- 
matically, rarely  exegetica'lly,  and  still  more  rarely 
does  he  interpret  them  in  logical  harmony  with 
their  contexts. 

It  would  not  be  a  difficult  task,  though  it  would 
be  a  tedious  one,  to  show  that  not  one  of  these 
texts  is  intended  to  teach  penal  substitution. 

Many  arguments  or  texts  are  not  necessary  to 
prove  a  doctrine  true  or  false.  One  is  often  suffi- 
cient. It  is,  therefore,  not  necessary  to  consider  all 
his  arguments  or  all  the  texts  which  he  uses  in 
support  of  his  doctrine.  A  few  will  serve  as  an 
illustration  of  his  general  plan. 

SECTION  II. — Reconciliation. 

Dr.  Hodge,  explaining  Rom.  v.  10,  says  (p.  514): 

"  *  Being  reconciled  by  the  death  of  his  Son,'  in 
verse  10,  is  parallel  to  the  clause,  '  Being  justified 
by  his  blood,'  in  verse  9.  The  one  is  exchanged 
for  the  other  as  different  forms  of  expressing  the 
same  idea.  But  justification  is  not  sanctification. 
It  does  not  express  a  subjective  change  in  the  sin- 
ner. And,  therefore,  the  reconciliation  here  spok- 
en of  can  not  express  any  such  change.  .  .  .  The 
death  of  Christ  as  satisfying  justice,  reconciles  God 
to  us." 

Speaking  of  Eph.  ii.  16,  "That  he  might  recon- 
cile both  unto  God  in  one  body  by  the  cross,"  he 
says: 

' '  Here  again  the  reconciliation  of  God  with  man 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  123 

is  effected  by  the  cross,  or  death  of  Christ.  The 
change  (the  reconciliation)  is  not  in  man,  but, 
humanly  speaking,  is  in  God;  a  change  from  the 
purpose  to  punish  to  a  purpose  to  pardon  and  save. 
There  is,  so  to  speak,  a  reconciliation  of  God's  jus- 
tice and  of  his  love  effected  by  Christ's  bearing  the 
penalty  in  our  stead." 

.In  reference  to  2  Cor.  v.  18,  "Who  hath  recon- 
ciled us  unto  himself  by  Jesus  Christ  and  hath 
given  unto  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation,"  he 
says: 

' '  This  does  not  mean  that  God  changed  our  heart 
and  made  us  love  him.  ...  It  can  only  mean  that 
through  Christ — through  what  he  did  and  suffered 
for  us — peace  is  restored  between  God  and  man, 
who  is  able  and  willing  to  be  gracious." 

Comment. — i.  I  will  not  say  much  that  might 
be  pertinently  said  of  this  disposition  of  these  plain 
texts.  Dr.  Hodge,  in  Rom.  v.  10,  makes  men  the 
subjects  of  reconciliation — not  God — and  identifies 
it  with  justification.  It  is  pertinent  to  say  that  the 
Bible  never  confounds  reconciliation  and  justifica- 
tion ;  never  uses  them  ' '  as  different  forms  of  ex- 
pressing the  same  idea."  The  Bible  always  uses 
reconciliation  as  expressive  of  a  moral  and  not  a 
forensic  state  of  the  mind. 

2.  In  all  the  other  citations  Dr.  Hodge  makes 
God — not  man — the  subject  of  reconciliation;  God 
is  reconciled  to  man. 

This  contradicts  the  plain  teaching  of  the  texts 
themselves.  They  show  on  their  face  that  it  is  not 
God  reconciled  to  man,  but  man  reconciled  to  God. 


124  REVIEW  OF 

Rom.  v.  10:  "While  we  were  enemies  we  were 
reconciled  to  God."  This  is  admitted  to  refer  to 
man,  but  not  to  his  subjective  or  moral  state. 
Then,  of  course,  the  ' '  we ' '  represents  unregener- 
ate  but  justified  men.  This  subordinates  the  moral 
state  to  the  legal,  and  turns  Bible  philosophy  up- 
side down. 

Eph.  ii.  16:  "That  he  might  reconcile  both  in 
one  body  by  the  cross. ' '  Dr.  Hodge  says,  ' '  Here 
again  the  reconciliation  of  God  to  man  is  effected 
by  the  cross. ' '  But  the  text  says  as  clearly  as  lan- 
guage can  say  that  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  rec- 
onciled to  God  by  the  cross.  God  is  the  reconciler 
of  men  ' '  unto  God, ' '  and  not  the  reconciler  of 
himself  unto  himself,  as  our  author  teaches.  This 
needs  no  further  comment. 

2  Cor.  v.  18:  "Who  hath  reconciled  us  to  him- 
self by  Jesus  Christ,  and  hath  given  to  us  the  min- 
istry of  reconciliation."  Dr.  Hodge  says: 

"This  does  not  mean  that  he  changed  our  heart 
and  made  us  love  him.  ...  It  can  only  mean  that 
through  Christ — through  what  he  did  and  suffered 
for  us — peace  is  restored  between  God  and  man. ' ' 

But  the  text  teaches  that  God  is  the  reconciler 
who  reconciles  men  to  him,  and  not  himself  to 
men. 

Again,  if  reconciliation  describes  a  state  of  the 
divine  mind,  how  could  the  ministry  of  it  be  given 
to  men?  I  can  conceive  how  God,  through  the 
ministry  of  men,  can  reconcile  men  to  himself;  but 
am  utterly  unable  to  see  how  men  could  minister 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  125 

reconciliation  as  a  state  of  the  divine  mind,  to. men, 
or  to  God,  or  any  thing  else;  especially  as  that  rec- 
onciliation had  been  an  accomplished  fact  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world.  This  being  the  case, 
what  need  for  any  such  ministry?  It  evidently 
could  effect  nothing — could  not  change  God;  for 
God  was  reconciled  to  man  by  the  Lamb  slain  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  could  not  affect 
man  for  he  is  not  the  party  to  be  reconciled;  nor 
does  he  need-  reconciliation,  for,  according  to  the 
theory,  he  was  reconciled  when  Christ  became  his 
substitute. 

Are  these  the  vagaries,  the  conceits,  the  incon- 
gruities of  the  Bible,  or  only  of  substitutionary 
penalty  ?  Dr.  Hodge  quite  conveniently  omits  all 
notice  in  this  connection  of  the  igth  and  2oth 
verses.  Certainly  he  could  have  put  them  dogmat- 
ically, if  not  logically,  in  harmony  with  his  theory. 

' '  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto 
himself" — not  reconciling  himself  to  himself,  nor 
himself  to  the  world. 

"We  beseech  you,  on  behalf  of  Christ,  be  ye 
reconciled  to  God."  Too  self-luminous  to  admit 
of  specious  perversion! 

These  texts  can  not  be  tortured  into  harmony  with 
penal  substitution.  They  condemn  it  utterly,  be- 
cause they  teach  with  sun  clearness: 

First,  that  men  are  reconciled  to  God,  and  not 
God  to  men. 

Secondly,  that  they  are  not, actually  reconciled  to 
him  by  the  fact  of  Christ's  death,  but  are  to  be  rec- 
onciled by  or  through  his  death  or  cross.  For,  if 


126  REVIEW  OF 

they  were  reconciled  when  Christ  became  their  sub- 
stitute from  eternity,  then  God  could  not  be  now 
reconciling  them,  nor  could  the  apostles  without 
stultifying  themselves  beseech  them  to  be  or  be- 
come what  they  already  are.  How  foolish  to  be- 
seech a  man  to  be  or  become  what  he  actually  is,  or 
what  God  has  already  made  him! 

But  the  substitutionary  scheme  logically  requires 
these  texts  to  be  explained  or  rather  perverted  sub- 
stantially as  Dr.  Hodge  has  done.  He  is  in  full 
accord  with  substitution,  but  in  glaring  conflict 
with  the  Bible.  • 

SECTION  III. — It  may  be  of  some  interest  to  no- 
tice Dr.  Hodge's  terms  and  how  he  disposes  of 
them. 

His  terms  are  satisfaction,  expiation,  pardon,  pro- 
pitiation, reconciliation,  justification,  regeneration, 
sanctification. 

1.  Satisfaction  is  what  Christ's  penal  death  ren- 
dered to  justice. 

2.  Expiation  is  the  effect  of  this  satisfaction  upon 
the  sinner's  legal  state,  releasing  him  from  the  lia- 
bility to  punishment. 

3.  Pardon  is  the  recognition  of  this  satisfaction 
and  expiation,  just  as  the  surrender  of  a  bond  is 
the  recognition  of  the  discharge  of  the  obligation. 

4.  Propitiation  is  the  effect  of  this  satisfaction, 
etc.,  upon  God.     He  now  can  be  just  in  justifying 
the  sinner. 

5.  Reconciliation  relates  sometimes  to  God  and 
sometimes  to  man. 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  127 

(1)  In  relation  to  God  it  is  either  identical  with 
propitiation  or  inseparable  from  it. 

All  these  changes  actually  occurred  in  eternity, 
or  when  Christ  became  a  substitute  for  the  elect. 

(2)  Reconciliation  in  relation  to  man  is  identical 
with  justification,  purely  forensic  in  character,  in- 
volving no  change  in  the  sinner's  moral  states. 

This  seems  sometimes  to  be  an  affair  of  time,  and 
sometimes  of  eternity.  There  is  no  perceptible 
reason  why  it  might  not  be  as  exclusively  an  affair 
of  eternity  as  is  expiation,  except  that  the  Bible 
happens  to  condition  justification,  the  reputed 
equivalent  of  reconciliation,  upon  faith,  which  is 
not  possible  till  after  the  sinner  is  born.  The  the- 
ory is  greatly  perplexed  at  this  point. 

All  these  changes  are  purely  legal,  and  affect 
only  God  and  his  purposes  in  relation  to  men. 
They  involve  no  change  whatever  in  man's  moral 
condition;  or  he  is  only  legally  cleansed,  but  still 
morally  polluted — exempt  from  punishment,  but 
carnally-minded,  and  therefore  in  a  state  of  death, 
which  Dr.  Hodge  calls  "damnation."  Legally 
saved,  but  morally  and  really  damned. 

6.  Regeneration  is  inceptive  sanctification  in  the 
sense  of  moral  purification.  This  is  purely  a  mon- 
ergistic  work  which  God  is  justly  bound  to  perform 
for  all  for  whom  Christ  died  '  ^efficaciously. ' ' 

This  moral  purification,  though  God  is  justly 
bound  to  perform  it,  justice  having  received  ' '  real 
adequate  compensation ' '  for  it,  may,  by  covenant 
stipulation,  be  indefinitely  deferred  after  birth,  and 
at  best  comes  only  by  a  gradual  process. 


128  REVIEW  OF 

•j 

This  is  strictly  the  process  of  salvation  by  penal 
substitution  as  set  forth  by  one   of  its  ablest  de- 
,  fenders. 

I  wish  here  to  call  your  attention  to  two  remark- 
able facts. 

(1)  If  this  scheme  is  true,  then  the  atonement 
consists  exclusively  in  God's  acting  upon  himself 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  enable  him  to  ' '  change  from 
the  purpose  to  punish  tp  a  purpose  to  pardon  and 
save"  (p.  515). 

(2)  According  to  the  scheme  every  characteristic 
of  the  atonement,  every  element  in  it  is  purely  legal 
without  a  single  moral  feature  about  it.     There  is 
in  it  absolutely  no  recognition  of  any  pertinency  or 
adaptation    to   man's   condition   as   a   free,    moral 
agent.     A  hard  necessity  reigns  over  all — over  God 
because  he  can  not  pardon  sin  unless  it  is  first  pun- 
ished, and  over  man  because  he  has  no  choice  be- 
tween the  acceptance  and  rejection  of  salvation;  for 
he,  according  to  the  substitutionary  scheme,  has  as 
little  agency  in  the  matter  of  his  regeneration  as  he 
has  in  the  removal  of  his  liability  to  punishment — 
as  little  agency  in  the  removal  of  his  reatus  culp& 
as  in  the  removal  of  his  reatus  poencs. 

God  does  what  his  nature  compels  him  to  do,  and 
man  necessarily  receives  what  God  necessarily  gives, 
is  the  logical  outcome  of  the  theory.  This  is  fate, 
and  u  fate  is  atheism." 

SECTION  IV. — Summary  of  Review. 

From  this  brief  summary  of  the  various  schemes 
of  soteriology  that  have  been  received  with  more 
or  less  favor  by  the  Christian  Church  from  the  days 


CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY.  129 

of  the  apostles  to  the  present  time,  we  may  gather 
some  important  lessons. 

1.  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  as  we  have  seen,  seem 
to  have  had  no  very  distinctly  defined  theory  of 
soteriology.     Barnabas  and  Clement,  of  Rome,  both 
disciples  of  Paul,  and  Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  both 
pupils  of  John,  all  teach  that  Christ  died  for  men, 
and  that  he  is  the  Savior  of  all  that  believe  on 
him,  but  give  us  no  very  distinct  statements  as  to 
how  his  death  avails  to  the  salvation  of  believers. 

2.  Patristic   soteriology,    as  we   have   seen,   was 
sadly  marred  and  degraded  by  the  assumption  that 
Satan   had   just  property  rights  in  mankind,  and 
that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  did  in  some  unaccount- 
able manner  satisfy  these  just  claims.     Some  of  the 
most  influential  men  of  the  Church,  such  as  Atha- 
nasius,   Augustine,    and  others  scarcely  less  illus- 
trious, taught  this  doctrine.     Advocated  by  these 
champions -of  orthodoxy,  it  was,  of  course,  consid- 
ered orthodox. 

3.  Anselm,    in   the   early   part   of  the   eleventh 
century,    formulated  the  satisfaction   theory.     Re- 
jecting the  idea  that  Christ  suffered  to  satisfy  the 
claims  of  the  devil,  he  assumed  that  Christ  suffered 
to  satisfy  the  claims  of  justice,  which  he  deemed 
the  most  central  attribute  of  God.      ' '  This  justice, ' ' 
he  says,  "  indeed  is  God  himself,  so  that  to  satisfy 
it  is  to  satisfy  God  himself."     The  Anselmic  sote- 
riology was   dove-tailed  into  Augustinian  anthrp- 
pology. 

Its   fundamental  principles  necessarily  involved 
the  doctrine  of  universalism,  or  a  limited   atone- 


130  CHRISTIAN  SOTERIOLOGY. 

ment.  For  this  and  other  reasons  it  was  generally 
rejected  up  to  the  Reformation.  Luther  and  the 
Reformers  generally  adopted  it,  and  it  is  in  its  fun- 
damental principles  the  prevailing  theory  in  all 
Calvinistic  churches  of  to-day.  Those  that  reject 
Augustinian  anthropology  generally  reject  Anselmic 
soteriology,  in  whole  or  in  part.  Some  such  adopt 
a  modified  form  of  it,  and  some  have  formulated 
theories  radically  different  from  it. 

4.  The  facts  of  history  show  that  there  never 
has  been  a  consensus  in  the  Christian  Church  con- 
cerning the  doctrine  of  atonement.  This  is  true 
not  only  of  Christendom  as  a  whole,  but  is  also 
true  of  the  different  ecclesiastical  organizations  of 
Christendom. 

In  fact,  the  subject  is  so  subtle,  so  extremely  dif- 
ficult of  a  lucid  and  self-consistent  exposition,  that 
differences  of  opinion  are  quite  excusable,  provided 
we  hold  hard  by  the  Bible  truth,  that  u  Jesus  Christ 
and  him  crucified ' '  is  the  Savior — the  only,  but  all- 
sufficient  Savior  of  the  world. 

It  is  not  theories  that  save  men,  but  Christ  him- 
self, and  faith  in  him  assures  salvation,  whether  we 
know  how  he  saves  us  or  not.  Still,  men  will  the- 
orize, and  false  theories  obscure  the  truth  and  tend 
to  paralyze  the  gospel.  The  theory  which  puts  truth 
in  its  simplest  form  and  brings  the  human  mind  in 
closest  contact  with  the  living  Christ  is  of  all  others 
presumably  the  best. 

To  outline  such  a  theory  is  what  is  attempted  in 
the  following  pages. 


PART  II. 
NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT-NON-PENAL  THEORY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PRELIMINARY    STATEMENTS. 

Having  briefly  reviewed  the  various  forms  of  the 
penal  and  vicarious  scheme  of  atonement,  and  indi- 
cated some  objections  to  the  scheme  itself  in  all  its 
forms,  I  will  now  attempt  a  statement  of  a  theory 
primarily  moral,  and  legal  only  because  it  is  moral, 
but  radically  different  from  what  is  generally  known 
as  the  moral  theory. 

Let  me  here  remind  the  class  that  it  is  one  thing 
to  disprove  a  given  theory,  and  quite  a  different 
thing  to  establish  another  in  its  place. 

If  two  theories  only  were  possible,  then  to  dis- 
prove one  would  be  to  prove  the  other.  But  in 
this  instance  this  is  not  strictly  true;  for  while  the 
theories  are  in  many  respects  contradictory,  they 
are  in  other  respects  only  contrary,  and  in  some 
particulars  even  coincident. 

The  question  which  most  concerns  us  is,  What 
scheme  best  agrees  with  all  the  Bible  facts  that  have 
any  bearing  on  the  subject  ?  is  best  adapted  to  the 

(130 


132  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

nature  and  needs  of  humanity?  and  best  satisfies 
the  demands  of  human  reason  ? 

Let  me  also  suggest  that  the  subject  is  so  many- 
sided — involves  so  many  collateral  and  vital  ques- 
tions— as  the  divine  attributes,  the  essential  char- 
acteristics of  moral  governmeijt,  the  nature  of  sin, 
moral  retribution,  confession,  repentance,  faith, 
regeneration,  justification,  etc. — that  to  present  a 
I}ir4's-eye  view  of  the  whole  subject  is,  perhaps,  im- 
possible. Such  is  the  complexity  of  the  question 
that  its  different  phases  must  be  studied,  both  in 
detail  and  also  each  in  its  relation  to  the  whole. 

What  is  imperatively  required,  is  so  to  define  and 
adjust  the  several  parts,  that  when  combined  they 
shall  form  one  symmetrical,  self-consistent,  and  self- 
s,upporting  whole.  Such  a  presentation  of  the  en- 
tire subject  would  be  equivalent  to  a  self-affirmation 
of  ifs  truth,  Wticl)  as  the  harmonious  combination 
of  all  the  parts  of  a  complicated  machine  proves 
the  several  adjustments  to  be  right.  Any  scheme 
of  atonement  that  arrays  one  Bible  truth  against 
another  ca.n  not  be  true. 

Allow  me  also  to  say  that  the  most  formidable 
difficulty  that  I  have  encountered  in  attempting  to 
formulate  the  doctrine  of  atcmeinent  has  arisen  from 
preppssessiqns  in  favor  of  the  legal  and  substitution- 
ary  theory,  fo  dispossess  ourselves  of  an  inherited 
fait^,  especially  when  it  is  venerable  with  age  and 
well-nigh  universally  accepted  by  the  learped  and 
the  good,  is  one  of  the  inost  difficult  achievements 
of  the  human  mind.  My  present  views  are  the  re- 
sult pf  years  of  persistent  and  painful  thought. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  133 

My  o\Vri  experience,  therefore,  prepares  trie  to  ap- 
preciate any  difficulties  that  may  beset  the  niirids 
of  others  on  the  subject,  and  to  sympathize"  with 
theiii  in  their  troubles. 

SECTION  1. — Divine  Justice  dhd  Law. 

Certainly  God  is  just.  "  Tile  judge  of  all  the  earth 
will  do  right."  But  it  does  not  follow  that  justice 
"is  the  most  central  attribute  of  God;'*  Of  that 
"justice  is  God,"  or  that  what  satisfies  justice'  satis- 
fies God,  father  than1  that  what  satisfies  God  satisfies 
justice. 

Justice  is  an  impersorial  thing,  and  as  such  is  in- 
capable of  ffiakirig  deinands  or  of  receiving  satisfac- 
tion, except  in  a  tropical  sense.  Persons  alone 
rfiake  dematids,  arid  persons  alone  are  capable  of 
making  and  receiving  satisfaction. 

We  have  the  word  justice  from  the  wofd  jiis  arid 
jus  froffi  jubeij,  to  coirim'arid,  order,  of  direct.  To 
coinrhaiid  presupposes  a  purpose,  arid  purpose  is  a 
product  of  will.  God's  purposes  are  to  him  the  rule 
Of  his  actiori,  arid  justice  as  ari  attribute  in'  hifri  is 
nis  integrity  to  his  purposes.  As  fie  can  riot  act 
contrary  to  his  purposes,  he  can  not  "be  Utijtist  in 
action,  for  justice  as  an  attribute'  is  iiis  fidelity  to 
his  purposes. 

God  is  love.  Love  fUrriishes  the  motives  of  nis 
stctiori  and  infinite  wisdom  the  riieah's  for  the  attairi- 
ment  of  his  purposes,  tlence,*  all  his  purposes  afe 
both  good  and  wise.  t,eibriitz  is  substantially  right 
when  he  represents  justice  as  "  love  guided  by  wis- 
doffl. ' '  Justice  as  a  divine  attribute  is  simply  Godys 
integrity  to  His  wise  arid  be'rievdletit  purposes,  jus- 


NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

tice  and  right  are  coincident.  It  is  impossible  for 
God  to  be  unjust,  because  it  is  impossible  for  him 
to  act  contrary  to  his  purpose. 

Justice  as  a  characteristic  of  the  divine  adminis- 
tration is  essentially  coincident  with  the  divine  will, 
and  of  course  with  the  divine  law,  which  is  but  an 
expression  of  that  will. 

Justice,  according  to  this  view,  instead  of  being 
the  most  central  attribute  of  God,  dominating  the 
divine  will,  is  simply  God's  fidelity  to  the  wise  and 
beneficent  purposes  of  that  will. 

God  in  creation  has  written  his  law  upon  the 
human  mind,  and  fixed  the  relation  between 
moral  actions  and  their  consequences.  These  con- 
sequences constitute  the  awards  of  virtue  and  vice. 
This  law,  as  written  in  the  heart,  is  intended  for 
the  good  of  the  subjects. 

If  obeyed,  good,  and  only  good,  is  the  result. 
This  is  the  reward  God  has  affixed  to  obedience. 
If  disobeyed,  evil,  and  only  evil,  is  the  necessary 
consequence.  This  evil  consists  in  the  negation 
of  the  good,  which  is  the  divinely  appointed  reward 
of  obedience. 

We  must  act,  and  of  necessity,  must  act  in  accord 
with  law,  or  in  contravention  of  it;  consequently 
must  experience  the  reward  of  obedience,  or  the 
penalty  of  disobedience.  We .  can  not  do  both  at 
the  same  time.  H^d  it  been  possible  for  God  to 
create  a  moral  being  capable  of  the  reward  or  hap- 
piness, which  he  has  annexed  to  obedience,  but 
without  any  capacity  of  punishment  or  unhappi- 
ness,  probably  he  would  have  created  man  in  this 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  135 

condition.  But  it  is  certain  that  lie  has  not  so 
created  him;  and  so  far  as  we  can  see,  the  capacity 
for  obedience  is  the  capacity  for  disobedience,  and 
the  possibility  of  moral  good  is  the  possibility  of 
moral  evil.  If  so,  then  to  create  man  with  capacity 
for  the  good,  without  the  liability  to  the  evil,  im- 
plies a  contradiction.  But  God  is  just  or  true  to  his 
own  purposes,  as  revealed  in  the  constitution  of  the 
human  mind,  and  in  his  word,  both  affirming — the 
former  subjectively,  and  the  latter  objectively — that 
"the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die,"  and  that 
4 '  the  wages  of  sin  is  death. ' ' 

This  is  the  aspect  of  divine  justice  or  law  that 
imperatively  requires — not  some  expedient  or  plan 
by  which  punishment  can  be  separated  from  dis- 
obedience, or  effect  from  its  cause,  for  this  would 
require  God  to  change  the  necessary  relation  be- 
tween disobedience  and  penalty — but  some  plan  by 
which  the  sinner  can  be  changed  from  a  rebel 
against  justice  or  law,  to  a  state  of  submission  to 
law  or  to  God.  The  restoration  of  the  rebel  to 
obedience  is  by  necessary  consequence  the  removal 
of  penalty,  just  as  the  cure  of  the  disease  is  the  re- 
moval of  its  painfulness.  Hence,  the  grand  object 
of  atonement,  as  I  humbly  conceive,  is  not  to  satisfy 
abstract  justice  by  substitutionary  penalties  and 
legal  fictions,  transferred  guilt,  etc.,  but  to  satisfy 
concrete  justice  in  the  sinful  soul,  to  purge  the 
conscience,  and  enable  the  sinner  to  love  God  and 
his  neighbor  as  himself. 

The  great  obstacle  to  human  salvation  lies  not  in 
God's  estrangement  from  men,  but  in  man's  es- 


136  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

trangement  from  God.  This  is  clearly  demon- 
strated by  the  fact  that  God  so  loved  the  sinful 
world  as  to  give  his  Son  for  its  deliverance  from 
sin. 

This  removal  of  guilt — both  as  to  rcatus  culptz 
and  reatus  poetic? — restores  the  sinner  to  obedience 
— to  loving  God  supremely — and  this  obedience 
honors  God  and  magnifies  the  law,  both  in  its  ob- 
jective and  subjective  aspects,  or  the  conscience; 
and  this  is  salvation. 

The  invariable  characteristics  of  the  divine  law 
are : 

1.  It  requires  personal  obedience.     uThou  shaft 
love"  etc. 

2.  Its  penalties  are  coincident  with  its  transgres- 
sions.     "/«  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt 
surely  die." 

3.  It  excludes  the  possibility  of  substitutionary 
obedience.     "  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die." 

4.  It  excludes  the  commutation  of  one  penalty 
for    another.      "Whatsoever  a  man   soweth,    that 
shall  he  also  reap. ' ' 

To  interpret  divine  law  by  human  law  leads  to 
false  notions  of  God  and  his  law,  of  sin,  of  retribu- 
tion, and  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  By  doing  this 
unwise  thing  substitutionists  have  constructed  a 
scheme  of  soteriology  which  is  in  violent  conflict 
with  every  one  of  these  fundamental  and  invariable 
characteristics  of  the  divine  law.  Hence,  they  save 
the  sinner  without  personal  obedience  of  any  form; 
save  him  temporarily  by  arrest  of  penalty;  save  him 
everlastingly  by  substitutionary  obedience;  save 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  137 

him  by  the  exchange  of  one  penalty  for  another; 
and  save  him  finally  by  making  a  commuted  pen- 
alty, endured  by  a  substitute,  a  "satisfaction,"  an 
"adequate  compensation  to  justice"  or  law,  which 
is  to  say  that  the  effect  removes  its  cause. 

What  is  imperatively  required  is  a  scheme  of  sal- 
vation that  saves  the  sinner  by  grace,  not  by  the 
works  of  the  law,  but  in  the  strictest  harmony  with 
law.  Such  a  plan  is  taught  in  the  Bible. 

SECTION  II. — God  is  sovereign  and  free. 

God  is  not  bound  by  any  central  attribute  (for 
one  is  no  more  central  than  another)  to  do  this  or 
that  in  contravention  of  his  will;  but  having  pro- 
jected under  the  prompting  of  immeasurable  love, 
guided  by  infinite  wisdom,  the  plan  of  the  moral 
world,  he  is  free  to  do  whatever  he  sees  best  for  the 
accomplishment  of  his  purposes,  without  any  pro- 
test from  justice.  Incompatibility  between  deter- 
minative and  executive  volitions — between  para- 
mount and  subordinate  purposes — between  ettds 
and  means  on  the  part  of  God,  wotild,  I  suppose, 
be  wrong  or  unjust,  or  a  want  of  integrity  to  his 
own  purpose,  plan,  or  promise.  But  mutability  or 
want  of  integrity  is  impossible  to  him.  Hence,  the 
end  of  justice,  coincident  with  the  end  of  the 
divine  law,  is  good,  not  evil — not  good  to  the 
greatest  number — but  good  to  all  and  evil  to  none. 
Justice  is  neither  incompatible  with  the  bestowal 
of  unmerited  favor,  as  when  the  householder  gave 
the  laborer  a  penny  for  his  one  hour's  work;  nor  is 
it  incompatible  with  gratuitous  favor,  as  when  God 
spared  Aaron  and  Israel,  in  the  affair  of  the  golden 


138  NATURE  OK  ATONEMENT. 

calf,  for  Moses'  sake,  who  made  atonement  for 
them.  Such  unmerited  favors  are  110  infractions 
of  justice,  when  they  better  serve  the  divine  pur- 
pose or  pleasure,  than  the  withholding  of  the  favor 
or  the  infliction  of  the  punishment  would  be.  The 
Bible  abounds  with  examples  of  forgiveness  with- 
out any  "real  adequate  compensation"  to  abstract 
justice,  so  called;  also  with  instances  of  favors 
bestowed  which  justice  could  not  demand.  This 
fact  will  be  clearly  demonstrated  in  subsequent 
pages. 

If  these  views  are  correct,  it  follows  that  the  par- 
amount obstacle  to  salvation  is  not  in  justice,  nor 
in  God,  but  in  the  state  of  the  human  heart — in 
man's  moral  corruption,  carnal-mindedness,  and 
consequent  moral  death.  What  is  needed  is  not  a 
substitute  to  suffer  this  death  in  his  stead,  but 
something  to  take  away  this  carnal-mindedness — 
the  cause  of  this  death,  or  "damnation,"  as  Dr. 
Hodge  explains  it.  This  penalty  can  never  do. 

SECTION  III. — Sin  not  debt  but  crime. 

Substitutionists  are  in  conflict  among  themselves 
as  to  whether  sin  is  a  debt  or  something  else. 

Anselm,  the  formulator  of  the  substitutionary  the- 
ory, says,  "  Sin  is  debt,"  and  makes  the  atonement 
the  payment  of  this  debt.  Dr.  Shedd  indorses 
Anselm,  and  penalists  generally  accept  this  theory. 
Dr.  Hodge,  however,  denies.  He  makes  it  an  of- 
fense, but  makes  it  analogous  to  debt.  He  thus 
secures  to  himself  a  sort  of  double  definition,  and 
skillfully  plays  from  one  to  the  other  as  occasion 
may  require. 


NON- PENAL  THEORY.  139 

To  make  sin  strictly  a  debt  and  nothing  but  a 
debt  secures  some  polemic  advantages  in  favor  of 
substitution.  This,  however,  avoids  some  difficul- 
ties only  by  creating  others  perhaps  more  formid- 
able. 

To  regard  sin  only  as  debt  is  either  to  minimize 
sin  or  to  maximize  debt.  We  get  the  word  debt  in 
the  Lord's  prayer  only  by  taking  a  word  literally, 
which  was  evidently  intended  to  be  taken  tropic- 
ally. This  is  manifest  from  the  fact  that  Christ 
explained  the  word  by  another,  which  is  never  used 
in  the  sense  of  debt.  No  apostle,  no  inspired  writ- 
er ever  calls  sin  a  debt. 

If  we  assume  sin  to  be  properly  debt,  and  fix  our 
attention  upon  its  essential  characteristics  as  debt, 
we  can  not  fail  to  reach  erroneous  conclusions  con- 
cerning the  nature  of  sin,  and  false  notions  of  sin 
lead  to  correspondingly  false  notions  concerning  the 
remedy  for  sin.  For  this  reason  the  question  de- 
mands a  fair  investigation. 

I  here  quote  from  "Atonement  and  Law  Re- 
viewed:" 

' '  In  the  last  analysis  sin  and  debt  agree. ' '  Mr. 
Armour  affirms — Paul  denies.  I  concur  with  the 
latter,  and  affirm  that  sin  in  the  last  analysis  is  law- 
lessness— enmity  to  God,  carnal-mindedness,  and  a 
state  described  as  spiritual  death.  Debt  is  not  nec- 
essarily so.  It  implies  no  alienation,  no  enmity, 
no  motive  or  desire  to  injure  the  creditor,  is  not 
necessarily  a  breach  of  good  morals,  implies  no  dis- 
regard to  the  rights  of  others,  or  criminal  intention. 
It  often  results  from  providential  occurrences,  from 


140  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

misfortune,  often  from  benevolent  arid  piotls  pur- 
poses. 

Certainly  one  man  may  intentionally  defraud  an- 
other; but  then  he  becomes  more  than  a  debtor — a 
criminal,  a  sinner  in  fact.  Debt,  unaccompanied 
with  bad  intention,  brings  no  moral  retribution 
upon  the  debtor.  If  it  results  from  unavoidable 
circumstances  it  may  bring  regret,  but  not  remorse; 
for  it  is  a  calamity,  not  a  crime. 

if  it  results  from  imprudence — its  most  fruitful 
source — it  is  followed  with  the  ordinary  penalties 
of  imprudence,  and  not  with  the  sting  of  conscious 
guilt.  Whatever  temporal  evils  may  arise  from  it, 
the  soul's  salvation  is  not  imperiled  by  it.  Can 
Mr.  Armour  say  these  things  of  sin?  If  he  can 
not,  why  does  he  strategetically  assert  the  identity 
6f  sin  and  debt  ? 

Again,  it  is  not  improper  to  say  that  debt  is  not 
necessarily  an  offense  to  the  creditor,  even  if  it 
should  never  be  paid.  The  creditor  is  often  the 
best  friend  to  the  debtor — loves  him  most,  has  the 
utmost  faith  in  him,  and  permits  him  to  increase 
his  indebtedness  with  little,  perhaps  no,  prospect 
of  ever  receiving  payment.  Is  this  true  of  sin  ?  Is 
it  not  necessarily  offensive  to  God — the  abominable 
thing  that  he  hates  ?  offensive  and  hateful,  not  be- 
cause it  personally  injures  him,  but  because  it  is  a 
willful  abuse  of  the  beneficent  and  infinitely  wise 
provisions  he  has  graciously  made  for  the  happi- 
ness of  his  rational  creatures.  It  is  as  truly  a  curse 
to  the  creature  as  it  is  an  offense  to  the  Creator;  for 
every  sin  against  God  is  a  sin  against  the  trans-" 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  14; 

gressor  himself,  being  an  infraction  of  the  condi- 
tions upon  which  his  good  necessarily  depends. 
Sin  is  to  the  sinner  himself  what  the  self-injected 
poison  of  the  viper,  which,  in  its  delirium  of  rage, 
thrusts  its  fangs  into  its  own  flesh  and  dies  of  its 
own  venom.  Can  all  this  be  said  of  debt?  If  not, 
why  attempt  to  identify  them?  To  do  this  is  to 
maximize  debt  and  minimize  sin — to  convert  the 
mole-hill  into  a  mountain  and  the  mountain  into  a 
mole-hill. 

3  ut  Mr.  Armour  makes  much  ado  over  the  word 
"debts"  in  the  Lord's  prayer.  He,  however,  is 
presumed  to  know  that  the  original,  opheilcmata,  is 
used  both  of  debts  and  also  of  sins  or  trespasses; 
that  the  word,  as  used  in  Matt.  vi.  12,  is  explained 
in  verse  15  by  the  word  paraptomata,  trespasses; 
that  Jyuke,  in  the  prayer  itself,  uses  the  word  sins, 
hamartia,  instead  of  the  word  debts;  that  Mark,  in 
the  parallel  text,  uses  trespasses,  paraptomata. 

Mr.  Armour  is  also  presumed  to  know  that  nei- 
ther paraptoma  nor  hamartia  is  ever  translated 
debt,  but  that  opheilema  is  used  in  the  sense  of  sin. 
To  build  up  a  mammoth  theory  on  so  shallow  a 
foundation  is  certainly  extremely  perilous  to  truth. . 
But  this  is  the  only  show  of  Bible  authority  our  au- 
thor has  for  calling  sin  a  debt.  But  the  Bible  gives 
no  authority  for  the  assumption  that  sin  is  debt  in 
any  proper  sense,  or  in  such  sense  that  it  may  be 
transferred  from  one  person  to  another,  as  human 
obligations  may  be  transferred  by  consent  of  parties. ' ' 

A  radical  point  of  difference  between  debt  and 
crime  may  be  thus  stated : 


142  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

If  I  contract  a  debt  with  the  purpose  or  intention 
not  to  pay  it,  then  I  am  both  a  debtor  and  a  crimi- 
nal. If  I  contract  a  debt  with  the  full  intention  to 
pay,  and  by  misfortune  become  unable  to  pay,  then 
it  becomes,  perhaps,  a  calamity  to  both  parties,  cer- 
tainly to  me,  because  I  experience  the  feelings  of 
sore  regret,  on  account  of  my  inability  to  pay,  but 
I  have  no  consciousness  of  intended  wrong. 

But,  if  I  commit  a  crime  against  God,  the  feeling 
of  regret  is  inevitable  to  me;  also  the  feeling  of 
remorse,  which  is  far  different  and  far  worse  than 
regret.  In  a  case  of  debt,  my  creditor,  having  a 
right  to  do  what  he  will  with  his  own,  may  gra- 
ciously forgive  me  the  whole  debt,  and  thus  relieve 
me  of  my  painful  regrets. 

But  in  the  case  of  crime,  if  God  should  formally 
propose  forgiveness,  this  could  bring  no  effective 
release,  because  I  have  sinned  against  the  law  of 
right  within  me,  or  against  myself,  from  which 
nothing  can  relieve  me,  except  a  change  of  my 
mental  state — a  purging  of  my  conscience.  This 
difference  between  debt  and  crime  is  radical.  Sin 
is  a  crime  against  objective  and  subjective  law — 
against  God  and  the  sinner  himself. 

To  relieve  the  soul  from  its  abnormal  state,  from 
its  enmity  against  God,  and  the  sad  disharmonies 
that  sin  has  produced  within,  is  to  restore  it  to  the 
favor  of  God.  The  required  change  is  a  change  in 
the  state  of  the  soul — not  a  change  in  God.  Of 
course  he  is  angry  with  the  wicked,  is  indignant  at 
their-rebellion  against  himself,  and  their  violations 
of  the  law  upon  which  their  own  good  is  condi- 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  143 

tioned.  Nor  can  lie  ever  cease  to  be  angry  with 
them  so  long  as  they  remain  in  a  state  of  lawless- 
ness, which  is  the  cause  alike  both  of  his  displeas- 
ure and  their  unhappiness.  It  is  not  God  that 
needs  to  be  changed  in  relation  to  the  sinner,  but 
the  sinner  in  relation  to  God.  A  child  in  rebellion 
against  a  loving  but  indignant  parent  needs  to  be 
changed,  not  the  parent.  The  rebellion  ended  and 
obedience  restored,  parental  indignation  ceases  for 
the  reason  that  its  cause  no  longer  exists. 

No  adjustment  of  the  divine  attributes  by  legal 
fictions  or  otherwise  is  possible,  for  they  are  not 
misadjusted;  but,  if  such  an  absurd  thing  was  pos- 
sible, it  would  be  of  no  value.  To  reconcile  a 
parent  to  a  rebellious  child  is  not  to  reconcile  the 
child  to  the  parent  or  to  remove  its  enmity,  and  the 
misery  that  is  born  of  hatred. 

The  physician  in  relieving  human  suffering  does 
not  inanely  attempt  to  doctor  or  change  nature, 
whose  laws  the  patient  has  violated.  He  doctors 
the  patient  and  strives  to  relieve  his  sufferings  by 
taking  away  his  disease — his  abnormal  state.  God, 
in  the  realm  of  hygienic  law,  and  in  the  realm  of 
moral  law,  is  consistent  with  himself.  He  does  not 
in  the  former  relieve  human  suffering  by  bringing 
the  sufferer  into  harmony  with  natural  justice  or 
law,  and  then  in  the  latter  by  the  reverse  process  of 
bringing  law  into  harmony  with  the  sufferer. 

This  latter  very  preposterous  thing  is  exactly 
what  substitution  attempts  to  do.  It  sets  God  to 
work  to  reconcile  himself,  or  justice,  to  sinners,  in- 
stead of  reconciling  sinners  to  himself.  (A  very 


144  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

reasonable  inference  is  that  if  all  men  are  not 
saved  it  is  only  because  God  has  not  succeeded  in 
reconciling-  himself  to  men.) 

Dr.  Hodge  and  others  distinctly  avow  this  doc- 
trine. God  reconciling  himself  to  sinners  ? 

Commenting  on  Eph.  ii.  16,  he  says  (p.  515): 

u  The  change  is  not  in  man,  but,  humanly  speak- 
ing, in  God;  a  change  from  a  purpose  to  punish  to 
a  purpose  to  pardon  and  save.  There  is,  so  to 
speak,  a  reconciliation  of  God's  justice  and  of  his 
love  effected  by  Christ's  bearing  the  penalty  in  our 
stead. ' ' 

This  remarkable  passage  I  have  previously  no- 
ticed, and  will  now  call  attention  only  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  it  is  stated.  "The  change  is  not  in 
man,  but,  humanly  speaking,  in  God."  Well,  itn- 
humanly  speaking,  where  would  the  change  be? 
In  man  or  in  God?  What  he  means  is  a  puzzle. 
Does  he  mean  that  the  change  is  real  or  mythical  ? 

Passing  a  similar  expression  in  the  next  sentence 
unnoticed,  you  will  observe  the  singular  assertion 
that  a  reconciliation  of  God's  justice  and  of  his 
"love  is  effected  by  Christ's  bearing  the  penalty  in 
our  stead." 

"God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  Son," 
etc.  How  could  Christ's  sufferings  reconcile  God's 
justice  and  love,  which  had  no  quarrel?  Does  sin 
disharmonize  the  divine  attributes,  as  well  as  ab- 
normalize the  human  soul  ?  Surely  if  sin  can  array 
one  divine  attribute  against  another,  or  create  dis- 
harmony in  the  divine  nature,  then  it  must  be 
mightier  than  God  himself. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  145 


CHAPTER  II. 

SECTION  I. — Natural  or  Human  Atonement. 

We  have  seen  that  sin  is  not  debt  in  any  proper 
sense;  that  it  is  far  worse  than  debt — an  offense 
against  God  and  a  violation  of  subjective  law,  a 
self-degradation  and  forfeiture  of  the  good  which 
the  beneficent  law  of  God  is  intended  to  conserve. 

Evidently  the  sinner  is  in  a  strait,  not  God.  The 
sinner  needs  a  change,  not  God.  The  sinner  needs 
reconciling  to  God,  not  God  to  the  sinner.  God, 
though  angry  with  the  wicked,  so  loved  the  world 
that  he  gave  his  Son  to  save  it  (anger  and  love  are 
not  incompatible  things).  But  the  sinner  hates 
God;  his  carnal  mind  is  at  enmity  against  God; 
and  this  Dr.  Hodge  says  is  ' '  damnation. ' ' 

In  the  light  of  such  facts  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
some  plan  or  expedient  is  necessary  to  relieve  men 
of  their  abnormal  enmity  against  God,  and  thus 
restore  them  to  the  state  of  loving  obedience  to 
God — obedience  to  God,  to  law  is  the  only  possible 
immunity  against  God's  anger,  as  revealed  in  the 
stern  retributions  of  his  law.  The  change  needed 
is  not  the  adjustment  of  the  divine  attributes,  but 
of  man's  sinful  state;  not  the  removal  of  his  reatus 
poence  by  a  substitute,  but  reatus  culpfz.  If  this  is 
so,  then  the  remedy  must  be  primarily  moral  in 
character;  for  moral  forces  alone  are  capable  of 
10 


146  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

producing  moral  changes  in  free  moral  beings. 
Substitutionists  admit  generally  that  after  men 
have  been  legally  saved  by  substitutionary  legal 
conceits,  it  is  still  necessary  to  regenerate  or  purify 
the  corrupt  heart  in  order  to  save  men.  In  other 
words,  after  they  have  legally  saved  the  sinner, 
they  are  under  the  necessity  of  supplementing  this 
legal  deliverance  by  a  deliverance  from  his  moral 
pollution;  the  latter  alone  being  real,  the  other 
fictitious;  for  to  save  a  sinner  in  his  sins  is  plainly 
not  to  save  him  at  all. 

Let  us  now  consider  whether  an  atonement  pri- 
marily legal  in  character,  or  one  primarily  moral  in 
character  is  required  by  the  disturbed  relations  be- 
tween God  and  the  sinner,  or  whether  the  state  of 
the  case  requires  primarily  the  removal,  by  substi- 
tutionary penalty,  of  the  sinner's  liability  to  pun- 
ishment, in  order  to  the  removal  of  his  criminality, 
or  the  removal  of  his  criminality  in  order  to  the 
removal  of  his  liability  to  punishment. 

Must  the  sinner  be  pardoned  in  order  to  be  re- 
generated, or  be  regenerated  in  order  to  be  par- 
doned ? 

The  real  issue  is,  Does  Christ  save  us  by  suffer- 
ing the  punishment  of  our  sins  in  our  place,  or  by 
delivering  us  from  our  enmity  against  God  and  re- 
storing us  to  a  loving  obedience  ? 

I  affirm  the  latter,  and  support  it  by  an  appeal  to 
known  facts  of  human  nature,  and  facts  given  in 
the  Bible. 

i.  The  divine  law — the  supreme  law  of  the  moral 
world — as  truly  requires  us  to  love  our  neighbor  as 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  147 

to  love  God.  Hence,  it  is  possible  to  sin  against 
our  neighbor,  and  this  sin  men  often  commit.  Sins 
against  our  neighbor  make  ' '  countless  thousands 
mourn,"  and  fill  the  world  with  human  woe.  But 
is  there  no  remedy  for  these  evils?  None,  abso- 
lutely, if  it  is  true  in  the  sphere  of  the  human  law, 
as  substitutionists  affirm  it  to  be  in  the  sphere  of 
the  divine  law,  that  there  can  be  no  pardon  without 
punishment,  or  that  all  pardon  has  its  ground  and 
reason  in  punishment. 

These  sins  generate  enmities  and  strifes  which  fill 
the  world  with  needless  woes. 

But  is  there  no  remedy  for  these  ills  ?  None — 
absolutely  none — if  there  can  be  no  pardon  without 
punishment,  as  penalists  persistently  affirm;  for  if 
a  man's  sins  against  his  neighbor  can  not  be  par- 
doned without  being  first  punished,  then  pardon  is 
utterly  worthless.  It  relieves  no  suffering,  for  to  be 
pardoned  is  to  be  punished,  and  to  be  punished  is  to 
be  pardoned. 

But  there  is  a  remedy  for  these  ills  which,  if 
faithfully  applied,  would  effectually  prevent  the 
miseries  arising  from  sins  against  our  neighbor; 
and  common  sense — perhaps  I  should  say  human 
instinct — suggests  it.  It  is  confession  on  the  part 
of  the  offender,  and  forgiveness  on  the  part  of  the 
offended. 

If  I  sin  against  you,  I  instinctively  know  that  I 
ought  to  confess  and  ask  pardon.  I  feel  this  to  be 
due  to  myself,  as  well  as  to  you,  for  nothing  short 
of  confession  can  relieve  me  of  my  mental  unrest, 
my  stings  of  conscience. 


148  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

You,  on  the  contrary,  instinctively  know,  when  I 
have  made  confession  and  asked  pardon,  that  you 
ought  to  forgive.  You  feel  that  you  owe  this  to 
yourself,  as  well  as  to  the  offender;  and  not  to  for- 
give is  to  make  yourself,  as  well  as  the  other  party, 
more  or  less  unhappy,  according  to  the  circum- 
stances. If  confession  is  made  and  pardon  granted, 
unhappiness  is  prevented. 

These  facts  lie  within  the  sphere  of  human  con- 
sciousness. They  are  matters  of  constant  expe- 
rience. This  is  atonement — propitiation  and  recon- 
ciliation— by  moral  means  and  for  moral  ends. 

2.  If  I  owe  you  a  debt  and  pay  it,  or  if  another 
pays  it  for  me,  this  would  be,  if  sin  is  a  debt,  a 
legal  atonement.     The  transaction  is  purely  legal, 
and  does  not  in  any  way  necessarily  change  the 
moral  relations  of  the  parties.     If  friends  before  the 
payment,  we  may  be  after  it;  if  enemies  before,  we 
may  be  afterward.     It,   however,   is  a  gross  mis- 
nomer to  call  this  an  atonement;  for  debts  are  not 
matters  to  be  atoned  for,  but  paid. 

3.  If  I  sin  against  you,  or  injure  you  in  person, 
property,  or  reputation,  and  you  sue  me,  and  I  am 
duly  punished,  it  would  be  an  unpardonable  mis- 
nomer to  say  that  I  am  pardoned ;  for  this  is  pun- 
ishment, and  in  no  sense  pardon;  for  it  does  not 
change  our  moral  relations — does  not  reconcile  us. 
We  may  even  be  more  bitter  enemies  after  the  pun- 
ishment than  before.      * 

4.  If  I  sin  against  you,  or  injure  you  in  any  res- 
pect, and  make  full  and  manly  confession,  and  ask 
forgiveness,  this  is  atonement  on  my  part,  and  is 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  149 

the  only  atonement  possible  for  me  to  make.  The 
atonement  can  not  be  made  by  the  payment  of 
something  of  equivalent  value,  for  there  is  abso- 
lutely no  standard  of  equivalence  between  debt  and 
offense.  We  could  as  properly  attempt  to  say  how 
much  sound  would  be  an  equivalent  for  a  given 
amount  of  color. 

If  the  confession  is  accepted,  reconciliation  fol- 
lows, and  harmony  between  the  parties  is  secured. 

If  the  confession  is  not  accepted,  then  perpetual 
enmity  and  its  consequent  evils  must  follow;  for 
the  only  atonement  possible  on  my  part  has  been 
offered. 

In  this  case  the  party  originally  offended  becomes 
responsible  for  the  evils  of  perpetual  strife,  and  a 
real  offender  against  his  neighbor  and  his  own 
peace;  for  not  to  forgive  upon  confession  and  re- 
pentance is  as  great  a  breach  of  moral  law  and  the 
law  of  amity  as  is  the  original  offense;  or,  if  you 
sin  against  me,  and  confess  and  ask  pardon,  and  I 
refuse  to  forgive,  then  I  become  as  great  an  offender 
against  moral  law  as  you,  and  I  become  responsible 
for  the  perpetuation  of  the  strife. 

u  Seventy  times  seven"  are  we  required  to  for- 
give our  neighbor  who  sins  against  us  if  he  repents. 
"If  we  repent  God  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive 
us  our  sins."  We  are  here  fairly  taught  that  for- 
giveness upon  repentance  is  not  merely  a  privilege, 
but  an  imperative  duty,  and  that  God,  in  this  re- 
gard, does  himself  just  what  he  requires  us,  both 
by  subjective  and  objective  law,  to  do. 

Perhaps  I  should  say  that  one  of  the  worst  of- 


150  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

fenses  against  the  peace  of  society  is  the  refusal  to 
forgive  upon  confession  those  that  sin  against  us, 
for  the  very  simple  reason  that  it  makes  personal 
animosities  perpetual,  or  renders  harmony  and  mu- 
tual love  impossible;  whereas,  if  all  offenses  were 
promptly  confessed  and  forgiven  as  God  requires 
universal  harmony  among  men  would  prevail. 

5.  If  you  sin  against  me  and  then  repent,  and  I, 
instead  of  forgiving  you,  take  vengeance  into  my  own 
hands  and  punish  you  to  my  own  satisfaction,  this 
punishment  does  not  restore  the  lost  harmony,  does 
not  cause  me  to  love  you  or  you  me.     Forgiveness 
would  restore  peace,  but  punishment  perpetuates  it; 
or  if  this  punishment  conditions  and  secures  recon- 
ciliation, as  substitution  requires  us  to  believe,  then 
Satan  and  all  his  hosts  are  in  a  state  of  reconcilia- 
tion with  God. 

6.  Another  class  of  atonements  may  receive  brief 
attention,  viz. :  such  as  require  the  offices  of  a  me- 
diator.    In  some  cases  of  estrangement  among  men 
their  relations  may  be  such  as  to  render  it  difficult 
for  either  party  to  take  the  initiative,  in  the  way  of 
reconciliation.     In  such  cases  the  offices  of  a  mut- 
ual friend  may  be  of  great  service.     Through  him 
the  parties  may  come  to  understand  each  other  bet- 
ter, and  their  obstacles  to  a  reconciliation  be  thus 
removed. 

Or,  the  mediator  may  fail  to  induce  the  offender 
to  make  confession  and  to  persuade  the  offended 
party  into  a  willingness  to  pardon  upon  confession. 
In  all  such  cases  the  responsibility  rests  upon  the 
unyielding  party. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  151 

SECTION  II. — Some  important  facts  concerning 
these  cases  of  atonement. 

1.  These  human  atonements,  as  I  shall  venture 
to  call  them,  are  not  strictly  analogous  to  that  made 
by  the   great  Mediator  and  Atoner,  which  was  in 
the  highest  sense  unique.     Still  they  are  all,  except 
that  relating  to  debt,  veritable  atonements  of  their 
kind,  according  to  the  Bible  idea  of  atonement,  as 
we  shall  subsequently  see. 

2.  I  wish  it  distinctly  noted  that  all  possible  en- 
mities and  disharmonies  among  men  and  their  sub- 
sequent   reconciliations   have   their  origin   in    the 
sphere  of  the  moral,  and  not  in  the  sphere  of  the 
legal,  relations  of  men;   and  that  the  legal  grows 
naturally  out  of  the  moral;  thus:  first,  the  offense 
which   is  moral,   then  the  condemnation,  which  is 
legal;   first,   the   confession,  which   is  moral,   then 
the  pardon  or  justification,  which  is  legal.       The 
legal  is  always  subordinate  to  the  moral,  and  comes 
necessarily  out  of  it,  as  effect  follows  cause. 

Hence,  there  can  be  no  condemnation  without 
antecedent  moral  corruption  as  its  cause,  and  of 
course  no  pardon  or  justification  without  the  ante- 
cedent removal  of  this  moral  corruption. 

If  this  is  not  true,  then  it  follows  that  if  I  sin 
against  you,  you  must  forgive  me  before  I  can  repent, 
which  we  know  is  a  psychological  absurdity,  and 
exactly  reverses  the  Bible  law  of  forgiveness. 

3.  These  cases  of  atonement  may  be  not  inap- 
propriately, I  think,  called  natural  atonements,  or 
natural  propitiations;  because  they  seem  to  be  nat- 
ural, or   indigenous   to   the  human  mind;   or  the 


152  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

principle  which  underlies  them  seems  to  be  a 
concreation  of  the  soul  itself.  If  I  give  you  just 
cause  of  offense,  I  am  instinctively  impressed  that 
I  ought  to  make  some  amends  by  confession,  apol- 
ogy, or  something  of  this  kind;  and  you  feel  in- 
stinctively to  realize  that  I  ought  to  make  the 
acknowledgement.  I  feel  that  I  have  no  right  to 
expect  your  favor  unless  I  make  the  ' '  amende  hon- 
orable;" you  feel  that  without  the  confession  on 
my  part,  your  forgiveness  would  be  unworthily  be- 
stowed and  actually  of  no  value,  because  not  sought 
nor  even  desired. 

How  strictly  coincident  in  this  regard  are  the  re- 
quirements of  the  Bible  and  the  constitution  of  the 
human  mind  ?  The  latter  is  the  mandate  of  God 
from  within;  the  former  from  without.  Let  us  not 
forget  that  the  divine  is  in  the  human,  and  the 
human,  though  dim,  is  a  copy  of  the  divine;  and 
this  fact  authorizes  the  belief  that  the  laws  and 
processes  of  the  human  mind  are  at  least  real, 
though  dim,  adumbrations  of  those  of  the  divine. 

4.  From  the  cases  considered  we  can  readily  see 
that  this  natural  law  of  confession  and  forgiveness 
is  indispensable  to  the  harmony  of  human  society; 
perhaps  I  should  say  to  the  very  existence  of  society, 
for  what  the  world  would  be  without  it,  is  impossi- 
ble to  conceive. 

5.  If  it  is  the  law  of  God,  subjectively  and  ob- 
jectively given,  that  sins  committed  must  be  con- 
fessed in  order  to  be  forgiven,  and  when  confessed 
must  be  forgiven  in  order  to  harmony  and  peace, 
then,  we  are  naturally  inclined  to  inquire  wherein 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  153 

consists  this  wonderful  power  of  confession  or  re- 
pentance which  seems  to  have  its  ground  in  the 
constitution  of  the  mind  itself.  Why  should  it 
condition  and  insure  forgiveness  ?  Or  how  does  it 
propitiate  ? 

I  answer,  we  know  the  fact  that  confession  does 
propitiate,  or  make  favorable  the  offended  party  to- 
ward the  offender;  we  know  it  from  experience  and 
from  the  Scriptures,  but  the  manner  of  the  fact  is 
not  so  obvious. 

Still,  by  a  careful  observation  of  the  laws  of 
mental  activities  and  states  we  may  learn  enough  to 
satisfy  us  that  the  relation  between  confession  and 
forgiveness  has  its  foundation  or  reason  in  the 
nature  of  the  mind  itself. 

(i)  Let  it  be  observed  that  the  moral  states  of  the 
mind  are  determined  by  the  motives  of  action;  also 
that  every  volition  is  followed  by  a  corresponding 
state  of  the  mind  as  the  act  of  rising  up  or  sitting 
down  is  followed  by  a  corresponding  bodily  state  or 
attitude. 

Every  external  act  is  an  act  of  executive  voli- 
tion, and  presupposes  a  determinative  volition  or 
purpose  to  which  it  is  subordinate,  and  of  which  it 
is  an  expression.  An  external  act  of  disobedience 
is  simply  executive  of  a  previously  formed  purpose 
of  disobedience.  In  this  purpose  and  its  corre- 
sponding states  consist  the  guilt,  the  criminality, 
the  rebellion,  the  enmity,  of  which  the  external 
act  is  the  revelation  or  expression  (Matt.  v.  28 ;  I 
John  iii.  15).  This  enmity  in  one  party,  when  re- 
vealed by  external  acts,  necessarily  awakens  indig- 


154  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

nation  or  displeasure  in  the  other  party,  and  happy 
fraternal  relations  are  of  course  suspended  and  must 
continue  so,  as  long  as  these  respective  states  of 
mind  continue. 

Happily,  a  change  is  not  impossible.  It  may  be 
brought  about  by  the  parties  themselves  or  through 
a  mutual  friend.  The  offender,  seeing  his  folly, 
may  repent — that  is,  turn  from  his  offensive  purpose. 
This  change  of  purpose  is  necessarily  followed  by  a 
corresponding  state  of  feeling,  and  the  offender  is 
actually  reconciled  before  any  confession  to  the  of- 
fended party  is  made.  The  act  of  outward  confes- 
sion has  in  itself  no  merit,  no  virtue  to  propitiate.  It 
is  only  the  revelation  to  the  other  party  of  repentance 
or  change  of  purpose  and  feeling  in  regard  to  him. 

Hence,  it  is  sufficiently  clear  that  this  repentance, 
this  change  of  purpose  and  feeling;  this  self-recon- 
ciliation is  the  propitiating,  or  favor-producing, 
power,  which  gives  to  the  offended  party  ample 
ground  for  both  real  and  declarative  pardon. 

Hence,  just  as  our  disregard  to  the  law  of  amity 
is  the  ground  and  reason  of  our  neighbor's  indigna- 
tion toward  us,  just  so  a  return  to  obedience  to  this 
law  is  the  ground  and  reason  for  the  withdrawal  of 
that  indignation.  As  disobedience  to  fraternal  law 
necessarily  involves  condemnation,  so  repentance, 
which  is  a  return  to  obedience,  necessarily  insures 
release  from  condemnation,  or  gives  sufficient 
ground  for  this  release. 

This  I  hesitate  not  to  affirm  is  the  law  of  forgive- 
ness as  revealed  both  by  the  Bible  and  by  the  facts 
of  human  nature. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  155 

(2)  But,  as  previously  stated,  a  mediator  is  in 
some  cases  uecessary,  even  among  men.  The  me- 
diator, of  course,  must  be  a  man,  and  must  also  be 
not  a  partisan  but  an  impartial  friend,  whose  offices 
are  equally  acceptable  to  both  the  offender  and  the 
offended.  He  is  not  in  any  sense  a  substitute  for 
either  party.  Pie  is  only  the  medium  of  peaceful 
communication  between  them,  whose  business  is 
to  make  peace  and  restore  the  parties  to  harmony. 
He  does  not  assume  the  guilt  of  the  offender  and 
suffer  in  his  stead,  thus  releasing  him  from  all  lia- 
bility. Just  as  easily  and  as  appropriately  might 
he  assume  the  indignation  and  wrath  of  the  offend- 
ed party.  In  fact,  if  he,  as  mediator,  becomes  the 
substitute  of  one  party,  he  must  be  the  substitute 
of  both;  otherwise  he  is  strictly  a  partisan,  and  not 
a  mediator  at  all.  If  he  assumes  the  guilt  of  one, 
then  he  must  assume  the  indignation  and  anger  of 
the  other,  and  accomplish  the  work  of  his  mediator- 
ship  by  pouring  out  his  wrath  upon  himself. 

Of  course  the  mediator  attempts  no  such  prepos- 
terous and  impossible  things.  Peace-makers  among 
men  are  benefactors  to  human  society,  human  and 
divine  law  recognize  them  as  such,  and  pfonounce 
them  blessed.  But  if  man  could  not  become  a  me- 
diator without  becoming  the  substitute  of  one  or 
both  parties,  few  men,  I  imagine,  would  ever  be- 
come peace-makers. 

What  the  mediator  really  does  is  not  to  take  the 
place  of  one  or  both  the  parties,  but  to  help  the 
offender  to  return  to  his  duty  and  to  do  just  what 
the  law  of  fraternal  peace  requires  him  to  do,  and  to 


156  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

induce  the  offended  party  to  accept  this  repentance 
as  the  condition  of  forgiveness. 

From  these  common  sense  truths,  it  is  clear  that 
the  propitiation  is  simply  in  the  repentance  or  in 
the  obedience,  and  not  in  any  suffering  endured  by 
the  offender  or  any  impossible  substitute.  Repent- 
ance propitiates  simply  because  it  is  a  return  to 
obedience — is  itself  obedience  in  spirit  and  inten- 
tion— which  is  all  the  law  of  fraternal  peace  re- 
quires; and  this  law,  receiving  all  it  requires,  of 
course  ceases  to  condemn;  and,  if  the  offended 
party  refuses  to  pardon,  he  himself  becomes  the 
offender  against  that  law,  and  is  a  worse  enemy  to 
fraternal  peace  than  the  repentant  original  offender. 
The  hard-hearted  and  unforgiving  brother,  who  was 
unwilling  to  receive  his  repentant  prodigal  brother, 
was  a  worse  man  than  the  returned  prodigal.  The 
resolution : 

"  I  will  arise  and  go  to  my  father,  and  will  say 
anto  him,  Father  I  have  sinned  against  heaven  and 
n  thy  sight;  I  am  no  more  worthy  to  be  called  thy 
;on:  make  me  as  one  of  thy  hired  servants.  And 
ic  arose  and  came  to  his  father.  But  his  father  .  .  . 
an  andjfell  on  his  neck  and  kissed  him." 

Here  we  have  atonement  in  its  full  sense,  includ- 
ng  reconciliation,  propitiation,  and  pardon. 

The  prodigal's  repentance,  as  evinced  by  his 
ctual  return  to  his  father,  was,  as  to  himself, 
^conciliation;  as  to  his  father,'  it  was  propitiation, 
r  what  pleased  him,  satisfied  him,  delighted  him, 
Because  it  brought  back  to  him  his  son  who  was 
Dst  and  dead,  but  now  found  and  saved. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  157 

These  facts  also  teach  us  with  sufficient  fullness 
and  clearness  that  pardon  does  not  consist,  as  penal- 
ists  teach,  in  the  removal  of  penalty,  leaving  the 
soul  in  its  moral  pollution  or  criminal  state.  A 
murderer,  may  be  arbitrarily  pardoned  by  guberna- 
torial fiat.  This  releases  him  from  the  gallows,  but 
not  from  his  guilt;  but  pardon  of  sin  consists  in 
deliverance  from  the  guilt  itself  which  causes  the 
punishment.  This  is  done  simply  by  restoring  the 
disobedient  to  obedience,  much  like  the  removal  of 
effects  by  the  removal  of  their  causes. 

6.  As  we  have  seen,  God  recognizes  the  fact  that 
we  may  sin  one  against  another,  and  has  most  ex- 
plicitly enjoined  the  duty  of  forgiveness.  He  has 
so  constituted  human  nature  as  to  condition  for- 
giveness of  sins  one  against  another  upon  repent- 
ance. The  duty  to  forgive  is  as  imperatively  en- 
joined as  the  duty  to  repent.  We  have  also  seen 
that  nothing  short  of  confession,  and  nothing  dif- 
ferent from  confession,  can  be  a  sufficient  reason  for 
pardon. 

Now,  the  human  bears  the  image  of  the  divine. 
It,  therefore,  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable, 
or,  rather,  is  unreasonable,  that  God  should  ordain 
one  law  of  forgiveness  for  some  sins  and  a  diamet- 
rically different  law  for  the  forgiveness  of  other 
sins.  One  method  of  atonement  and  pardon  for 
sins  against  humanity  and  a  contrary  method  of 
atonement  and  pardon  for  sins  against  God  ?  Can 
this  be  possible  ? 

The  fact  that  the  human  mind  is  created  in  the 
image  of  the  divine  mind  seems  to  authorize  the 


158  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

inference  that  there  is  at  least  some  similarity  in 
their  moral  attributes.  Hence,  that  justice,  truth, 
love,  mercy,  etc.,  in  the  human  are  generically  the 
same  as  they  are  in  the  divine.  The  differences, 
which  of  course  are  immense,  are  differences  of  de- 
gree and  not  of  kind.  If  this  is  not  so,  the  Bible 
is  certainly  not  a  revelation,  but  a  riddle.  But  the 
Bible  is  a  revelation  of  God,  and  God  is  consistent 
with  himself ;  then  it  fairly  follows  that  the  law  of 
human  forgiveness,  as  revealed  in  nature  and  in  the 
Bible,  is  generically  the  same  as  the  law  of  divine 
forgiveness.  That  God  should  make  confession  the 
absolute  condition  of  forgiveness  in  reference  to 
men,  and  punishment  the  indispensable  condition 
of  forgiveness  in  reference  to  himself,  is  a  thing  in 
itself  inconceivable.  It  presupposes  that  the  moral 
government  of  God  is  an  ill-considered  piece  of 
patch -work,  without  any  determinate  end,  and 
utterly  without  any  uniform  relation  between  ante- 
cedents and  their  sequences,  conditions  and  ends — 
e.  g.:  If  my  neighbor  sins  against  me,  I  am  bound 
to  forgive  him  on  condition  of  his  repentance;  but 
if  he  sins  against  God,  that  can  be  forgiven  only  on 
condition  of  punishment  inflicted  upon  the  sinner 
himself  or  a  substitute. 

In  relation  to  the  human,  the  punishment  is 
taken  away  by  removing  its  cause.  In  relation  to 
the  divine,  the  cause  is  removed  according  to  cove- 
nant engagement  by  taking  away  the  effect. 

7.  But  while  the  laws  of  forgiveness  are,  in  rela- 
tion both  to  the  human  and  divine,  generically  the 
same,  they  are  in  their  accidents  specifically  differ- 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  159 

ent.  For  instance,  in  relation  to  men's  sins  against 
one  another,  men  may  be  their  own  atoners,  or  may 
be  reconciled  through  a  mere  human  mediator. 
But  this,  for  reasons  hereafter  to  be  given,  the  of- 
fender can  not  do  in  relation  to  sins  against  God. 

8.  I  have  often  been  asked  the  question,  What 
become  of  these  sins  of  humanity  against  human- 
ity, if  they  are  forgiven  upon  confession?  Are 
they  pardoned  without  punishment  at  the  hands  of 
the  offended  party  ?  In  reply  I  will  say  only  what 
seems  to  be  a  satisfactory  answer. 

(1)  If  our  sins  had  to  be  punished  at  the  hands 
of  those  against  whom  we  sin  as  a  condition  of 
pardon,  then  this  world  would  be  a  pandemonium, 
society  would  be  impossible,  "  vindicatory  justice  " 
would  devour  the  human  race.      This  is  self-evi- 
dent, and  no  man  would  be  willing  to  subject  him- 
self to  the  charge  of  insanity,  by  saying  that  our 
sins  against  each  other  can  not  be  pardoned  unless 
they  are  first  punished;  but  thousands  hold  to  penal 
substitution,  which  asserts  that  punishment  is  the 
only  ground,  and  is  the  absolute  condition  of  divine 
forgiveness. 

(2)  If  you  can  tell  me  what  becomes  of  pain 
when  it  ceases  to  affect  you;  or  what  becomes  of 
the  malady  which  produces  the  pain,  when  it  is 
cured;  you  can  answer  the  question  as  to  what  be- 
comes of  our  sins  and  their  penalties  when  they 
are  taken  away. 

(3)  In  accordance  with  Bible  language  these  of- 
fenses are  pardoned,  forgiven,  remitted,  blotted  out, 


160  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

or  cease  to  exist  as  disturbers  of  the  peace  of  the 
parties  concerned. 

But,  if  pardon  is  not  conditioned  upon  punish- 
ment, what  becomes  of  the  claims  of  justice  ?  I 
answer,  what  satisfies  the  parties  concerned  satisfies 
justice.  God  commands  us  to  forgive,  and,  as  we 
have  seen,  not  to  forgive  when  confession  has  been 
made  is  to  sin  against  God.  You  do  not  feel  that 
you  have  violated  justice  .when  you  have  forgiven 
an  offense.  If  this  was  so,  truly  our  condition 
would  be  an  anomalous  one,  and  as  deplorable  as 
anomalous;  namely,  unable  to  forgive  without  sin- 
ning against  justice,  and  yet  equally  unable  to  re- 
fuse to  forgive  without  sinning  against  God.  This 
you  will  perceive  is  exactly  the  condition  in  which 
substitution  puts  us,  if  the  laws  of  human  and  di- 
vine forgiveness  are  the  same  in  kind — that  is,  we  can 
not  forgive  without  defrauding  justice,  nor  refuse  to 
forgive  without  sinning  against  God. 

(4)  But,  after  all,  does  not  society,  or  the  moral 
world  if  we  prefer,  suffer  loss  on  account  of  sin.  I 
answer,  if  not  to  realize  what  is  possible  of  realiza- 
tion is  to  suffer  loss,  then  all  sin  brings  a  loss;  for 
not  to  realize  a  possible  good  is  to  experience  the 
deprivation  of  that  good,  as  not  to  acquire  knowl- 
edge is  to  suffer  the  evils  of  not  acquiring  it.  To 
such  loss  all  moral  governments,  which  are  not 
composed  of  indefectible  creatures,  are  liable;  but, 
as  I  have  repeatedly  said,  punishment  repairs  no 
losses  of  any  kind.  But  it  should  be  observed  that 
there  is  less  loss  in  forgiveness,  when  it  is  possible, 
than  in  non-forgiveness,  simply  because  forgiveness 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  161 

checks  the  evil,  while  non-forgiveness  perpetuates 
it. 

9.  The  preceding  are  some  of  the  collateral  ques- 
tions connected  with  the  doctrine  of  atonement. 
Their  discussion  is  intended  as  preparative  to  the 
consideration  of  the  great  central  doctrine  of  Chris- 
tianity, viz. :  the  mediation  of  Christ. 
ii 


162  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER  III. 

SECTION  I. — The  Bible  usage  of  the  word  Atone- 
ment. 

Having  considered  the  general  subject  of  atone- 
ment—  including  reconciliation,  propitiation,  par- 
don, etc. — in  relation  to  our  sins  against  one  an- 
other, let  us  now  consider  atonement  in  relation  to 
our  sins  against  our  divine  Father. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  word  is  not  a  New  Testa- 
ment word  at  all,  and  yet  is  currently  used  to  ex- 
press the  central  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  We  have  also 
seen  that  in  its  popular  use  it  is  highly  ambiguous, 
is  used  sometimes  in  the  sense  of  reconciliation,  or 
at-one-mindedness;  and  sometimes  in  the  sense  of 
propitiation,  or  that  which  renders  reconciliation 
possible;  and  sometimes  in  a  double  sense,  includ- 
ing both  reconciliation  and  propitiation. 

In  view  of  this  diversity  of  usage,  it  is  a  matter 
of  the  first  importance  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  its 
exact  meaning  as  used  by  the  Old  Testament 
writers. 

I  hope  to  be  pardoned  for  saying  the  very  first 
thing  necessary  is  to  lay  down  the  dictionaries, 
which  reflect  the  vices  as  well  as  the  virtues  of  the- 
ological authors  of  the  last  eight  or  ten  centuries, 
and  take  up  the  Bible  and  test  in  the  crucible  of 
common  sense  the  word  as  there  used. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  163 

To  determine  the  color  of  objects  through  col- 
ored glass,  or  to  apprehend  the  truth  through  per- 
verted symbols,  is  impossible. 

The  exclusion  of  the  dictionaries  becomes  a 
prime  necessity,  because  theologists  have  forced 
into  the  word  what  it  was  never  intended  to  mean, 
adopting  as  its  lexical  equivalents  such  words  and 
phrases  as  "satisfaction,"  "expiation,"  " piacular 
offerings"  "penal  sacrifices"  "vicarious  obe- 
dience" "legal  equivalents"  "adequate  compen- 
sation to  justice, ' '  etc. 

Such  expressions,  I  feel  safe  in  saying,  were  never 
suggested  by  a  careful  examination  of  Bible  facts, 
allowing  the  Scriptures  to  be  their  own  interpreter; 
but  by  the  exegencies  of  a  theory  founded  upon  false 
conceptions  of  the  immutable  attributes  of  God. 

In  settling  a  Bible  question,  it  is  of  no  conse- 
quence to  ascertain  the  sense  in  which  terms  are 
used  by  secular  and  theological  writers.  The  vital 
question  is,  In  what  sense  do  the  sacred  writers  use 
them?  This  it  behooves  us  now  to  determine  in 
reference  to  the  much-abused  word,  atonement. 

i.  You  do  not  need  to  be  informed  that  the  He- 
brew word  kaphar,  translated  in  our  English  Bibles 
atonement,  means  a  literal  covering,  and  is  the 
name  given  to  the  top,  or  lid,  of  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  (Ex.  xxv.)  as  a  protection  to  its  contents. 
Of  course  the  word  when  used  in  relation  to  men 
and  their  sins  is  taken,  not  in  this  literal,  but  in  a 
tropical  sense.  The  chief  difficulty  is  to  determine 
precisely  what  this  tropical  sense  is,  or  in  what 
atonement  really  consists. 


164  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT* 

The  lid  of  the  ark  was  intended  to  protect  its  con- 
tents from  injury,  rather  than  to  deliver  them  from 
injury  already  existing.  But  the  word  is  not  gen- 
erally used  in  this  sense.  Sin  exists  and  a  remedy 
is  required.  The  remedy  is  found  only  in  atone- 
ment. Thus  far  all  agree.  But  in  what  does 
atonement  consist,  and  how  does  it  deliver  from 
sin  ? 

Penalists  say  atonement  consists  in  suffering  the 
penalty  of  sin,  and  thus  saves  by  this  penal  satisfac- 
tion rendered  to  justice.  I  dissent,  and  affirm  that 
atonement  does  not  consist  in  deliverance  secured 
by  penal  suffering,  but  by  a  radically  different 
method. 

SECTION  II. — Particular  instances  of  its  Bible 
use. 

The  word  atonement  often  occurs  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, but  only  in  a  few  instances  do  the  contexts 
give  any  distinct  idea  of  what  constitutes  the  aton- 
ing power.  In  these  few  instances,  however,  we 
have  clear  proof  that  it  does  not  consist  in  penal 
suffering,  but  in  placating  or  pleasing  God  by  fidel- 
ity to  him.  Note  the  following  instances. 

From  Leviticus  xvi.  11-20,  and  other  texts,  we 
learn  that  atonement  was  required  not  only  for  the 
people,  but  also  for  inanimate  things  connected 
with  the  tabernacle  service.  In  verse  20,  we  read: 

"And  when  he  (the  priest)  had  made  an  end  of 
atoning  for  the  holy  place,  and  the  tent  of  the  meet- 
ing and  the  altar,"  etc. 

(i)  We  learn  from  the  context  that  these  things 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  165 

required  atonement  only  "because  of  the  unclean- 
ness  of  the  children  of  Israel." 

Of  course  the  cleansing  of  the  holy  place,  etc., 
by  atonement  was  ritual,  because  they  were  not  ca- 
pable of  a  moral  cleansing. 

(2)  The  atonement  was  made  by  priests,  for  none 
others,  unless  divinely  appointed,  could  make  atone- 
ment for  any  thing  pertaining  to  divine  worship. 

(3)  This  atonement  was  made  by  blood,  just  as 
that  for  the  priest  and  the  people  was  made,  as  in 
verses  11-15.     This  fact  of  itself  is  fatal  to  penal 
atonement.     According  to  the  theory,  the  sufferings 
of  the  sacrificial  kid,  as  a  symbolical  substitute  for 
the  worshiper,  constituted  the  atonement. 

This  granted,  what  follows?  This:  that  the  kid 
was  a  substitute  for  the  holy  place  and  the  altar,  to 
make  atonement,  for  which  it  endured  the  same 
penal  suffering,  both  in  degree  and  kind,  that  it  en- 
dured for  the  offerer  or  sinner.  If  atonement  for 
the  worshiper  required  penal  suffering,  then,  of  ne- 
cessity, atonement  for  the  holy  place  and  the  altar 
required  penal  suffering;  for,  if  this  is  not  so,  then 
penal  suffering  is  no  part  of  atonement  at  all.  The 
matter  may  be  thus  put: 

Atonement  was  made  for.  the  holy  place. 

But  the  holy  place  had  no  sins  to  be  punished. 

Therefore,  atonement  is  not  made  by  punish- 
ment. 

A  less  suicidal  view  of  the  subject,  I  think,  is 
possible. 

The  holy  place  had  no  sins  to  be  punished,  but 
God  required  it  to  be  relieved  of  such  uncleanness 


1 66  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

as  comes  of  connection  with  the  unclean;  as  the 
uncleanness  that  comes  of  contact  with  a  dead  body. 
But  the  same  sacrificial  blood  that  sanctifies  to  the 
purifying  of  the  flesh  of  the  worshiper  is  capable 
of  sanctifying  to  the  ritual  purification  of  the  altar 
and  holy  place  (Heb.  ix.  13,  21,  22).  By  the  blood, 
the  altar,  etc.,  were  sanctified — to  sanctify  is  to 
make  holy,  to  consecrate  to  God,  and  whatever  is 
thus  sanctified  is  acceptable,  or  well  p"  easing  to 
him. 

But  to  make  acceptable  is  to  make  atonement. 

For  whatever  is  sanctified  to  him  is  acceptable, 
and  nothing  else.  In  Rom.  xii.  i,  we  have  the 
exact  order,  ' '  I  beseech  you  ...  to  present  your 
bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  to  God." 
Sacrifice — sanctification  or  appropriation  to  God, 
and  acceptance  by  God.  Heb.  ix.  13,  14,  gives  the 
same  order. 

The  penal  theory  requires  us  to  believe  that  the 
sufferings  of  the  kid  were  penal,  and  that  these  suf- 
ferings made  atonement  for  the  altar,  or  rendered  it 
acceptable  to  God;  and. this  requires  us  to  believe 
that  God  substitutionally  punished  the  altar,  in 
order  to  make  it  acceptable  to  him,  or  in  order  to 
reconcile  himself  to  it.  If  this  is  credible,  noth- 
ing is  incredible. 

(4)  It  seems  proper  here  to  say  that  in  reference 
to  the  sin  offerings  for  the  people,  the  pains  endured 
by  the  sacrificial  victim  in  dying  were  deemed  of 
no  consequence  whatever.  They  constituted  no 
part  of  the  atonement.  They  were  simply  inci- 
dental to  it.  If  the  blood  could  have  been  pro- 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  167 

cured,  and  other  requirements  met  without  a 
particle  of  pain  on  the  part  of  the  victim,  the  value 
of  the  sacrifice  would  have  been  diminished  not  a 
particle.  It  seems  the  climax  of  pious  trifling  to 
assert  that  the  momentary  pangs  of  a  kid  repre- 
sented in  sacred  symbol  the  torments  of  the  lost 
soul. 

The  significance  of  the  sacrifice  lies  quite  in  an- 
other direction.  Penalists  attach  all  value  to  the 
suffering  of  the  victim,  and  none  whatever  to  the 
blood,  except  as  the  proof  of  the  suffering.  On  the 
contrary,  the  whole  value  was  in  the  blood,  and 
none  in  the  momentary  pain  incident  to  its  death. 

"The  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood;  and  I  have 
given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make  atonement 
for  your  souls;  for  it  is  the  blood  that  maketh  an 
atonement  for  the  soul ' '  (Lev.  xvii.  1 1). 

This  teaches  that  it  is  not  suffering  as  such,  penal 
or  otherwise,  but  the  blood  that  secures  atonement. 
"  The  life  ...  is  in  the  blood,"  "for  it  is  the  blood 
that  maketh  the  atonement" — not  the  suffering  as 
such.  The  life  is  in  the  blood,  or  the  blood  enshrines 
the  life,  and  in  shedding  blood  for  sacrificial  purposes 
there  is  a  consecration  of  life  to  God.  Hence,  the 
altar,  etc.,  sprinkled  with  this  consecrated  symbol 
of  life  made  atonement  for  it,  or  rendered  it  accept- 
able to  God. 

The  atonement  was  not  in  the  suffering  as  such, 
but  exclusively  in  the  giving  of  the  blood,  or  life, 
to  God. 

This  truth  is  fully  proved  by  the  sacrifice  of 
Isaac. 


1 68  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

(5)  It  seems  supererogatory  to  say  that  we  have 
a  real  atonement  in  this  case,  but  no  penal  suffering 
— no  suffering  of  any  kind  by  the  altar,  symbolical 
or  real.  Exactly  so  is  it  in  every  case.  The  atone- 
ment is  the  giving  of  the  blood,  or  life,  to  God. 
The  blood  and  life  are  equivalents.  To  give  one 
was  in  intention  to  give  both.  Hence,  the  bloodless 
sacrifice  of  Isaac. 

We  also  learn  that  no  less  blood  was  required  to 
make  atonement  for  the  holy  place  and  the  altar 
than  for  an  individual  worshiper,  and  no  more  for 
the  whole  Jewish  nation,  than  for  one  man.  Thus 
the  victim  and  the  blood  necessary  to  atonement 
for  the  altar  was  sufficient  for  the  whole  nation — 
millions  of  people. 

This  fact  is  certainly  difficult  to  harmonize  with 
the  doctrine  that  Christ's  sufferings  were  equal  in 
degree  to  the  eternal  punishment  of  those  for  whom 
he  suffered.  But  if  typal  atonement  was  made  sim- 
ply by  obedience  to  the  precepts  of  the  law,  we  can 
very  well  understand  how  a  sacrificial  victim  suffi- 
cient for  one  was  sufficient  for  all. 

It  is  here  clearly  seen  that  the  facts  in  regard  to 
this  atonement  can  not  be  harmonized  with  pe- 
nality. 

SECTION  III. — Poll-tax  Atonement. 

In  Ex.  xxx.  11-16,  we  have  an  account  of  what 
I  shall  call  an  Atonement  poll-tax.  Every  man  of 
twenty  years  of  age  was  required  to  pay  into  the 
treasury  a  half  shekel  —  "the  rich  no  more,  the 
poor  no  less." 

This  money  was  an  offering  unto  the  Lord,  and 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  169 

is  called  a  ransom  for  the  soul  and  the  atonement 
money,  and  was  given  to  make  atonement  for  the 
soul. 

1.  This   atonement,   as   appears  from  the  facts, 
was  made  not  to  secure  a  return  of  lost  favor,  but  to 
prevent  the  loss  of  favor  already  in  possession;  just 
as  by  paying  our  taxes  we  prevent  the  fines  and 
penalties  which  come  from  not  paying  them.     In 
this  regard  this  atonement  is  in  exact  accord  with 
the  lid,  or  covering  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant. 

It  protects  from  injury  rather  than  delivers  from 
evils  previously  incurred. 

2.  No  blood  was  shed,  'without  which  there  is  no 
remission,  and  no  sins  were  remitted  simply  because 
there  were  none  to  remit. 

3.  This  atonement  was  not  made  by  a  priest,  be- 
cause   the    particular  sin  to  which  it  related,   not 
having  been  committed,  no  mediator  was  necessary. 
Every  man  was  his  own  atoner,  just  as  any  man,  not 
guilty  of  any  particular  sin,  may  secure  divine  favor 
by  avoiding  that  sin. 

4.  This  atonement,  called  a  ransom  for  the  soul, 
consisted  purely  and  exclusively  of  personal  obe- 
dience to  the  preceptive  requirements  of  the  law. 
It  was  atonement  by  perfect  obedience  and  by  suf- 
fering of  .no  kind,   penal  or  otherwise.     On  this 
wise  the  unfallen  angels,  I  suppose,  make  atonement, 
propitiate,  satisfy  justice,  law,  God,  and  conscience, 
and  enjoy  perfect  and  continuous  blessedness.      I 
wish  the  class  to  study  these  cases  thoroughly,  for 
we  have  atonement  here  in  the  exact  analogy,  in 
which  the  lid  of  the  ark  was  a  covering,  a  protec- 


170  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

tion  to  the  contents  of  the  ark.  It  is  in  utter  con- 
flict with  penal  substitution  in  every  essential 
feature.  If  one  is  true  the  other  can  not  be  true; 
for  one  palpably  contradicts  the  other.  Judge  for 
yourselves. 

SECTION    IV. — Atonement    in    relation    to    the 
golden  calf. 

In  Ex.  xxxii.,  and  in  Deut.  ix.,  we  have  an 
atonement  made  by  Moses  for  the  children  of  Israel 
in  the  affair  of  the  golden  calf.  How  was  this 
atonement  made? 

This  is  the  answer: 

"And  Moses  returned  unto  the  Lord,  and  said, 
'  O  this  people  have  sinned  a  great  sin,  and  have 
made  them  gods  of  gold.  Yet  now,  if  thou  wilt 
forgive  their  sin,  and  if  not,  blot  me,  I  pray  thee, 
out  of  thy  book,  which  thou  hast  written.'  And 
the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  '  Whosoever  hath  sinned 
against  me,  him  will  I  blot  out  of  my  book  '  ' '  (Ex. 
xxxii.  31-33). 

We  have  a  more  circumstantial  account  of  this 
same  atonement  in  Deut.  ix.  18,  19.  Moses  says: 

"  And  I  fell  down  before  the  Lord' as  at  the  first; 
forty  days  and  forty  nights  I  did  neither  eat  bread 
nor  drink  water;  because  of  all  your  sin  which  ye 
sinned  in  doing  that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of 
the  Lord,  to  provoke  him  to  anger.  For  I  was 
afraid  of  the  anger  and  hot  displeasure  wherewith 
the  Lord  was  wroth  against  you  to  destroy  you. 
But  the  Lord  hearkened  unto  me  that  time  also. ' ' 

i.  This  is  expressly  called  an  atonement  (verse 
30).  The  vital  elements  are  in  the  line  of  personal 
fidelity  to  God,  who  requires  supreme  love  and  full 


NON-PENAL  THEORY. 


171 


self-surrender  to  himself.  This  loving  obedience  to 
God  and  love  to  his  neighbor,  Moses  manifested  in 
his  prostration  before  the  Lord,  in  his  self-abnega- 
tion, in  confessing  the  sin  of  his  people,  in  his  forty 
days'  fast,  in  the  entreaty  to  be  blotted  out  of  the 
book  of  life,  if  his  people  could  not  be  spared. 

2.  God   was   propitiated,   atonement  was   made, 
and    divine   anger   turned   away,    and   the   people 
spared,  not  because  their  sins  were  expiated,  but 
for  Moses'  sake. 

They  were  spared  not  for  the  sake  of  what  Moses 
did,  but  for  the  sake  of  what  he  was,  and  he  was 
what  he  was  because  of  what  he  did,  or  because  of 
his  persistent  fidelity  and  obedience  to  God  and  love 
for  his  people. 

3.  The  punishment  threatened  was  not  inflicted, 
either  upon  Moses,  or  the  people,  or  any  one  else. 
Yet  we  have  genuine  atonement,  but  no  penal  in- 
fliction upon  principal  or  any  substitute. 

4.  What  become  of  the  claims  of  "justice,"  the 
most  central  attribute  of  God,  in  this  case  ?     Not  a 
word  is  said  about  it.     What  was  turned  aside  was 
divine    anger,    indignation  —  not   justice,    surely. 
What  satisfied  God  evidently  satisfied  justice. 

5.  No  typical  beast  is  slain,  or  sacrificial  blood  is 
shed ;  yet  there  was  a  priest  and  a  sacrifice  in  inten- 
tion, as  when  Abraham  offered  up  Isaac.     Moses, 
like  Christ,  was  both  priest  and  sacrificial  victim, 
who  offered  his  life  as  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  the  sake 
of  his  people,  and  which,  because  he  was  what  he 
was,  God  accepted  as  a  sweet- smelling  savor. 

6.  Moses  staked  his  life  upon  the  issue.     He  did 


172  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

not  propose  to  give  his  life,  as  a  substitute,  for  that 
of  his  people,  nor  to  die  in  their  stead;  but  to  die 
with  them,  or  share  their  destiny — die  with  them 
if  they  must  die.  But  God  spared  them  for  his 
sake. 

Surely  the  penal  theory  receives  no  countenance 
from  the  facts  in  this  case,  but  is  condemned  in 
toto. 

SECTION  V. — Atonement  for  treason. 

Num.  xvi.  41-48,  gives  us  the  history  of  an 
atonement  which  is  highly  instructive. 

The  congregation  of  Israel  charged  Moses  and 
Aaron,  because  of  the  destruction  of  ' '  Korah  and 
his  company,"  with  killing  the  Lord's  people. 
This  unjust  charge  was  a  virtual  impeachment  of 
the  justice  and  honor  of  God  himself,  who  had 
punished  the  sedition  and  sacrilege  of  Korah  in 
a  summary  manner.  This  charge  provoked  God  to 
punish  the  rebellious  people.  A  cloud  of  wrath 
covered  the  tabernacle,  and  a  fearful  plague  fell 
upon  them.  ' '  And  the  Lord  commanded  Moses 
and  Aaron  to  get"  out  of  the  way  that  he  "might 
consume  them  as  in  a  moment."  But  Moses  and 
Aaron,  instead  of  getting  out  of  the  way,  deter- 
mined to  stay  in  the  way. 

They  fell  upon  their  faces  resolutely  purposing  to 
share  the  destiny  of  their  people.  "And  Moses 
said  unto  Aaron,  Take  a  censor,  fire  from  the  altar, 
and  incense,  and  make  an  atonement;"  and  "Aa- 
ron made  an  atonement  for  the  people;  "  and  "  He 
stood  between  the  dead  and  the  living,  and  the 
plague  was  stayed." 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  173 

i.  Here  we  have  a  real  atonement,  a  deliverance 
from  temporal  death,  by  the  turning  away  or  ap- 
peasement of  God's  indignation.  What  saved  the 
people  was  the  prompt  refusal  of  Moses  and  Aaron 
to  get  out  of  the  way,  and  their  self-sacrificing  pur- 
pose to  share  the  destiny  of  their  people,  to  die 
with  them,  if  they  must  die.  This  was  obedience 
to  One  requirement  of  the  divine  law — loving  their 
neighbor  as  themselves.  This  was  heroic  fidelity 
to  their  people. 

But  they  were  not  less  faithful  to  the  other  re- 
quirement of  that  law — loving  the  Lord  their  God 
with  all  their  hearts.  Thjs  love  they  demonstrated 
by  their  reverence  and  prostration  on  their  faces  a-nd 
the  burning  of  incense,  which  is  .the  divinely  ap- 
pointed symbol  of  confession,  prayer,  and  suppli- 
cation. 

2.  This  atonement  is  distinguished  by  a  note- 
worthy, but  very  instructive  circumstance.  This: 
God  commanded  Moses  and  Aaron  to  do  a  thing, 
which  they  refused  to  do,  and  by  doing  something 
contrary  appeased  the  anger  of  him  whose  command 
they  had  disobeyed. 

But  how  could  disobedience  please  God  ?  or  obe- 
dience displease  him  ?  or  how  could  disobedience  to 
a  command  save  the  people,  obedience  to  which 
would  have  resulted  in  their  destruction  ? 

The  paradox  is  easily  solved.  God's  command  to 
Moses  and  Aaron  to  get  up  from  among  the  people 
that  he  "might  consume  them  as  in  a  moment," 
was  intended  as  a  trial  of  their  faith,  as  was  his 
command  to  Abraham  to  sacrifice  his  son.  If 


174  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

Moses  and  Aaron  had  obeyed  this  command,  they 
would  have  violated  the  great  moral  law  of  love 
and  sinned  against  their  people;  or  they  would  have 
preferred  themselves  to  their  people.  But  by  dis- 
obeying this  command  they  proved  their  loyalty  to 
God's  law,  and  their  fidelity  to  their  people. 

We  thus  see  that  the  atoning,  or  propitiating 
power  in  this  instance  was  in  obedience,  or  the 
merit  that  comes  from  obedience. 

3.  Here  we  have  real  atonement,  but  no  substitu- 
tion, no  penalty,  no  defrauding  of  justice,  but  a 
turning  away  of  divine  anger  by  obedience  to  the 
supreme  law  of  love. 

SECTION  VI.  — Atonement  for  seduction. 

In  Num.  xxv. ,  we  have  an  atonement  remarkable 
for  the  uniqueness  of  its  method.  Some  Israelites 
had  been  seduced  into  a  degrading  idolatry  by  the 
Moabites.  This  very  much  distressed  the  loyal 
people,  and  displeased  the  Almighty. 

On  a  certain  occasion,  when  the  loyal  people 
were  weeping  before  the  tabernacle,  and  deploring 
the  sins  of  their  kindred,  Ziinri,  one  of  the  chief 
men  of  the  Hebrews,  brought  Cozbi,  a  Midianite 
princess,  into  the  very  presence  of  Moses  and  the 
congregation,  then  weeping  over  the  sins  of  their 
people. 

Phineas  rose  up  from  his  intercessions,  and  fol- 
lowed Zimri  and  Cozbi  into  the  tent,  and  with  a 
spear  slew  them  both.  The  plague,  which  had 
already  destroyed  twenty  thousand,  was  instantly 
stayed.  God  said  that  Phineas  had  turned  away 
his  wrath  by  this  act,  and  made  an  atonement  for 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  175 

Israel,  "because  he  was  zealous  for  my  sake  or 
with  my  zeal. ' '  And  God  gave  him  and  his  seed 
an  everlasting  priesthood,  ' '  because  he  was  zealous 
for  his  God  and  made  an  atonement  for  the  children 
of  Israel." 

This  atonement  may  on  first  thought  seem  to  be 
essentially  different  from  all  others  mentioned  in 
the  Bible.  But  upon  reflection  we  find  that  while 
it  differs  in  external  form  from  all  others,  it  is  in 
essence — in  the  mental  states — generically  like  all 
others.  Righteous  indignation  is  the  obtrusive 
form  of  feeling  displayed. 

This,  however,  was  the  natural  outgrowth  of  his 
zeal  for  his  God,  and  jealousy  for  his  honor,  and 
this  again  was  the  natural  and  necessary  psycholog- 
ical consequence  of  his  love  to  God  and  love  to  his 
people.  . 

The  same  love  and  devotion  to  God  and  his  peo- 
ple that  prompted  Moses  to  fast  and  pray  forty  days, 
and  to  ask  to  be  blotted  out  of  God's  book,  if  his 
offending  brethren  should  be  destroyed,  prompted 
Phineas  to  vindicate  the  honor  of  God  and  avenge 
the  insult  offered  to  his  people. 

This  atonement,  we  can  not  fail  to  observe,  .was 
made  by  a  priest,  formally  consecrated  to  the  office 
of  mediator.  The  same  act  performed  by  any  one 
not  recognized  as  a  priest,  it  is  presumed,  would 
not  have  been  an  atonement  at  all. 

Other  Bible  atonements  involving  the  same  fun- 
damental principles,  might  be  here  noted,  but  need 
not.  Others,  however,  will  be  subsequently  referred 
to  for  special  purposes. 


176  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

SECTION  I. — Some  general  statements. 

1.  The  first  and  the  second  atonements  considered 
were  made  in  accordance  with  legal  requirements 
and  legally  prescribed  forms.     They  were  regular 
ordinances  of  the  theocratic  government. 

All  the  others  were  made  without  such  require- 
ments, and  according  to  no  prescribed  form.  They 
were  suggested  by  fearful  emergencies,  which  were 
without  anticipation — pure  surprises.  The  atone- 
ments were  none  the  less  effective,  however,  on  this 
account,  for  the  purposes  intended. 

2.  They  were  all  made  by  priests — the  divinely 
ordained  mediators  between  God   and   men — men 
separated  unto  and  consecrated  to  him,  for  special 
purposes.     Whatever  is  thus  separated  and  conse- 
crated to  God  is  holy,  and  belongs  to  God  in  a  pe- 
culiar sense,  and  commands  his  care  and  love  (Ex. 
xix.  5;  Deut.  xiv.  2;  xxvi.  18;  Titus  ii.  14;  i  Peter 
ii.  9). 

The  Levitical  priesthood  had  peculiar  duties,  pe- 
culiar privileges,  and  peculiar  power  with  God, 
which  no  unconsecrated  man  dare  to  arrogate  to 
himself.  Saul,  we  learn  from  i  Sam.  xix. ,  lost  his 
kingdom  by  arrogating  the  right,  even  in  what  he 
deemed  an  emergency,  to  play  the  role  of  a  priest 
in  offering  sacrifices.  We  also  learn  from  Num. 


Nox- PENAL  THEORY.  177 

xvi.)  that  Korah,  Dothan,  and  Abiram,  and  all  that 
pertained  to  them,  were  swallowed  up  by  the  earth 
for  a  seditious  attempt  to  obtain  the  priesthood,  and 
for  offering  incense  which  consecrated  priests  alone 
were  authorized  to  offer;  likewise  two  hundred  and 
fifty  princes  of  the  assembly — "men  of  renown  " — 
were  destroyed  by  fire  from  heaven  for  burning  in- 
cense— a  function  peculiar  to  priests. 

Even  the  censors  in  which  these  wicked  sedition- 
ists  had  burned  holy  incense  were  deemed  hallowed, 
and  the  material  of  which  they  were  made  was  not 
permitted  to  be  put  to  secular  uses,  but  was  manu- 
factured into  coverings  for  the  altar. 

The  careful  study  of  this  chapter  (Num.  xxv.) 
can  not  fail  to  impress  us  with  a  sense  of  the  pe- 
culiar sacredness  of  the  priesthood,  and  of  whatever 
pertained  to  their  functions. 

I  therefore  repeat  that  these  atonements  were 
made  by  priests,  and  evidently  could  have  been 
made  by  none  but  priests. 

3.  The  punishments,  thus  turned  away  by  these 
atonements,  were  the  arbitrary  and  temporary  pen- 
alties of  special  sins,  such  as  idolatry,  treason,  etc., 
and  not  the  natural  or  ordinary  penalties  of  the 
great  moral  law.     Hence,  these  atonements  could 
not  change  the  moral  states  of  those  for  whom  they 
were  made,  nor  relieve  them  from  the  natural  pen- 
alties of  sin. 

4.  Though  none  but  a  priest  could  make  atone- 
ment for  sin  against  God,  yet  these  atonements  that 
have  been  considered  all  lie  in  the  same  line  with 
human  atonements,  or  atonements  for  sin  committed 

12 


178  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

by  man  against  his  fellow-man.  As  far  asunder  in 
some  respects  as  heaven  and  earth,  or  God  and 
man,  yet  like  heaven  and  earth,  God  and  man,  they 
have  some  things  in  common. 

Man  is  created  in  God's  image;  hence,  we  find 
something  of  the  divine  in  the  human.  In  no  re- 
spect, I  feel  confident,  is  this  something  more  strik- 
ingly displayed  than  it  is  in  the  great  law  of  atone- 
ment and  forgiveness.  While  human  atonements 
are  adequate  for  the  purposes  of  social  intercourse 
among  men,  and  Aaronic  atonements  adequate  to 
appease  the  anger  of  God  against  those  guilty  of 
special  treasonable  offenses  against  the  theocracy, 
and  also  to  take  away  ritual  uncleannesss,  etc., 
Messianic  atonement  alone  is  adequate  to  secure 
reconciliation  to  God  and  fit  the  soul  for  heaven. 

SECTION  II. — The  requirements  of  mediator  ship. 

The  requisites  for  efficient  mediatorship  are  love 
to  both  parties  and  zeal  for  their  honor  and  interest. 
But,  while  loving  both,  the  mediator  differs  from 
both  in  his  mental  states,  in  his  purpose  and  feel- 
ing. He  has  neither  the  indignation  nor  wrath  of 
the  offended  party,  nor  the  remorse  and  shame  of 
the  offending  party.  Their  purposes,  whatever 
may  be  their  specific  character,  are  in  the  direction 
of  discord.  His  purpose,  on  the  contrary,  is  to 
destroy  this  discord,  and  restore  harmony  and  peace, 
and  "  make  through  himself  of  twain  one  new  man, 
so  making  peace.'' 

If  the  mediator  succeeds,  lie  turns  away — ap- 
peases, sets  aside — the  wrath  of  the  offended  party, 
and  bears^  lakes  away,  destroys  the  sin  of  the  of- 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  179 

fending  party.  But  he  never  experiences  the  anger 
of  the  one,  nor  the  shame,  conscious  guilt,  and  re- 
morse of  the  other;  or  becomes  the  substitute  bf 
one  or  of  the  other;  or,  if  of  either,  then  necessari- 
ly of  both;  otherwise,  he  is  hot  a  mediator  at  all, 
but  a  partisan.  'But  to  do  either  is  just  as  impossi- 
ble as  it  is  to  change  his  personality. 

The  laws  of  forgiveness  in  relation  to  the  hu- 
man and  the  divine  are  generically  the  same,  but 
specifically  different,  only  because  of  the  differences 
of  the  relations  of  the  parties. 

Among  men,  as  We  have  seen,  self-atonement,  or 
atonement  through  a  human  mediator,  is  possible. 
But  in  relation  to  sin  against  God,  such  atonement 
is  simply  impossible. 

The  relations  between  God  and  man  effectually 
exclude  atonement  by  mere  human  agency.  Many 
reasons  might  be  given  in  support  of  this  proposi- 
tion; only  two,  however,  will  here  be  named. 

(i)  Man's  utter  ignorance  of  God,  and  also  of 
himself. 

He  of  himself  knows  not  whence  he  is,  nor  what 
he  is,  nor  for  what  end  he  was  made;  and  of  course 
knows  not  what  to  dti,  or  how  to  reach  the  end  of 
his  being,* or  even  whether  it  has  any  end.  He  is 
conscious  of  the  sad  disharmonies  and  unrestfulness 
of  his  own  soul,  and  is  painfully  cognizant  of  a  like 
mental  unrest  in  others.  But  how  to  free  himself 
from  this  dissatisfaction,  or  whether  deliverance  is 
possible,  he  does  not  know,  tie  feels  that  he  is  de- 
pendent but  does  not  know  upon  what  or  whom. 
He  is  unhappy  but  does  not  know  why — that  he  is 


i8o  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

a  rebel,  but  does  not  know  against  what — whether 
against  a  power  within  himself?  or  a  power  without 
him  and  above  him. 

He  has  not  of  himself  the  knowledge  of  God  as 
his  divine  Father,  and  of  course  knows  not  where- 
in he  has  offended  him,  or  whether  he  has  offended 
him  at  all,  or  how  to  procure  his  favor. 

Hence,  the  very  first  thing  necessary  to  the  res- 
toration of  the  lost  harmony  between  God  and  man 
is  a  mediator,  adequate  to  reveal  God  to  man,  and 
man  to  himself. 

The  God-Man  alone  is  adequate  to  this  double 
office,  for  none  but  the  divine  in  Christ  can  reveal 
God  to  man,  and  none  but  the  human  in  Christ  can 
reveal  man,  as  to  his  spiritual  nature  and  grand 
possibilities,  to  himself.  (Matt.  xi.  27;  xvi.  17; 
Luke  x.  21,  22.) 

Hence,  Christ  is  the  light  of  the  world,  revealing 
God  to  men  and  men  to  themselves. 

(2)  If  sinful  man  even  knew  God  as  thoroughly 
as  God  knows  himself,  and  knew  himself  as  thor- 
oughly as  Omniscience  knows  him,  he  could  not 
make  atonement  for  himself;  nor  could  any  mere 
human  being  make  it  for  him.  For,  as  we  have 
seen,  what  is  holy,  sanctified,  consecrated,  to  God  is 
his  in  a  peculiar  sense,  and  is  always  acceptable, 
agreeable,  pleasing  to  him;  but  the  unsanctified, 
unconsecrated,  is  never  acceptable. 

This  is  proved  by  the  scope  and  animus  of  the 
whole  tabernacle  service,  and  the  uniform  teaching 
of  the  New  Testament.  (See  Rom.  xii.  i ;  2  Thes, 
ii.  13;  Heb.  ix.  13,  14;  i  Pet.  i.  i,  2.) 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  18.1 

Nor,  as  we  have  shown,  is  it  allowable  for  any 
but  a  priest  to  offer  sacrifice  or  make  atonement  for 
any  thing.  This,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  fear- 
fully exemplified  in  the  punishments  of  Saul,  Ko- 
rah,  and  the  two  hundred  princes — "men  of  re- 
nown. ' ' 

SECTION  III. — Men  can  not  make  atonement. 

Two  questions  very  naturally  arise: 

(1)  Why  can  a  man  not  consecrated — sanctified — 
set  apart  to  the  priestly  office,   offer  sacrifices  or 
make  atonement  ? 

The  answer  seems  to  be  this:  God  accepts  nothing 
not  sanctified  or  consecrated-  to  him.  Hence,  atone- 
ment was  required  for  the  altar,  etc.,  as  also  for 
men.  But  none  but  priests,  or  those  whom  God 
has  sanctified,  can  sanctify  or  make  atonement  for 
themselves  or  any  thing  else.  Hence,  the  unsanc- 
tified  can  no  more  make  atonement  for  themselves 
than  they  can  change  their  own  nature.  This  will 
be  subsequently  noticed. 

(2)  Why  can  real  atonement  not  be  made  for  the 
sinner  by  any  divinely  appointed  human  priests,  as 
Moses  or  Aaron  ?     Or,  why  could  they  not  impart 
their  holiness  to  others,  as  God  had  imparted  his  to 
them? 

The  answer  obviously  is,  that  God's  holiness  is 
original ;  theirs  derived.  Hence,  they  could  impart 
only  ritual  or  ideal  holiness — not  real — could  not 
impart  God's  holiness,  but  only  a  symbol  of  that 
holiness;  hence,  could  make,  not  a  real,  but  only  a 
ritual  atonement  for  themselves  or  any  thing  else. 
Hence,  while  they  could  make  ritual  atonement  for 


1 82  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

the  altar  and  holy  place,  arid  for  men;  also  turn 
away  God's  auger,  provoked  by  sius  against  the 
theocracy;  they  could  not  make  such  atonement  as 
to  render  reconciliation  and  salvation  from  sin 
against  the  divine  law  possible. 

Hence,  it  is  certainly  true  that  no  atonement, 
made  by  Moses,  or  Aaron,  or  any  other  human 
priest,  ever  saved  a  soul  from  the  natural  conse- 
quences of  sin,  or  rendered  such  salvation  possible. 
None  but  a  priest,  capable  of  making  men  partak- 
ers of  God's  righteousness,  is  capable  of  doing  this. 
The  God-Man  alone  is  such  a  priest. 

This  distinction  between  the  Aaronic  and  the 
Messianic  sacrifices  and  the  atonements  grounded 
upon  them  ought  to  be  specially  noted  and  empha- 
sized. 

The  Bible  never  confounds  them  but  makes 
1;hem  as  distinct  as  shadow  and  substance.  These 
tabernacle  sacrifices  and  atonements  were  the  di- 
vinely appointed  types  of  Messianic  atonement. 

The  distinction  between  these  atonements  is 
clearly  drawn  in  Heb.  ix.  13,  14: 

"For  if  the  blood  of  goats  and  bulls,  and  the 
ashes  of  a  heifer,  sprinkling  them  that  have  been 
defiled,  sanctify  unto  the  cleanness  of  the  flesh;  how 
much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through 
the  eternal  spirit  offered  himself  without  blemish 
unto  God,  [sanctify  and]  cleanse  your  conscience 
from  dead  works  unto  God." 

Here  the  precise  difference  between  the  Aaronic 
sacrifices  and  atonements  and  the  Messianic  is  clear- 
ly specified.  The  former  "sanctifies  unto  the 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  183 

cleanness  of  the  flesh  " — that  is,  ritual  purification, 
such  as  purification  from  defilement  by  contact  with 
a  dead  body.  (Num.  xix.  n,  12.)  The  latter  sanc- 
tifies unto  the  purification  of  the  ' '  conscience  from 
dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God." 

If  to  cleanse  the  conscience  is  not  to  change 
the  moral  state  and  fit  the  soul  for  the  service  of 
God,  then  certainly  there  is  no  need  for  regenera- 
tion, or  moral  purification  at  all;  for  what  more  can 
God  require  of  a  soul  than  to  have  a  conscience 
purified  from  dead  works,  and  be  thus  prepared  for 
the  service  of  God. 

Consistent  substitutionists  are  required  to  identify 
the  effects  of  Aaronic  and  Messianic  atonement,  and 
deny  that  either  of  them  can  do  more  than  relieve 
from  the  liability  of  punishment. 

Dr.  Hodge  says  (p.  509) : 

"  Heb.  ix.  14  is  especially  important  and  decisive. 
The  apostle,  in  the  context,  contrasts  the  sacrifices 
of  the  law  with  that  of  Christ.  If  the  former,  con- 
sisting of  the  blood  of  irrational  animals,  nothing 
but  the  principle  of  animal  life  could  avail  to  effect 
external  or  ceremonial  purification,  how  much  more* 
shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  was  possessed  of  an 
eternal  spirit  or  divine  nature,  and  offered  himself 
without  spot  unto  God,  avail  to  the  purification  of 
the  conscience — that  is,  effect  the  real  expiation  of 
sin.  The  purification  spoken  of  in  both  members 
of  this  comparison  is  purification  from  guilt  and 
not  spiritual  renovation.  The  Old  Testament  sac- 
rifices were  expiatory  and  not  reformatory,  and  so 
with  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  The  certain  result  and 
ultimate  design  in  both  cases  was  reconciliation  to 
the  favor  and  fellowship  of  God. ' ' 


184  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

By  reconciliation  he  means  propitiation.  I  re- 
gret to  say,  but  fidelity  requires  me,  that  it  would 
be  difficult  to  embody  in  so  brief  a  space  and  in  so 
plausible  a  manner,  more  grievous  error  than  is  con- 
tained in  this  quotation. 

It  will  be  sufficient  here  to  indicate  the  errors, 
without  attempting  a  formal  refutation. 

1.  We  are  here  taught  that  to  purify  the  con- 
science is  to  expiate  sin — that  is,   to  remove  the 
reatus  poence,  but  not  the  reattis  culpcs,  as  else- 
where explained. 

The  plain  Bible  plan  is  to  take  away  the  liability 
to  punishment  by  purifying  the  conscience,  or  to 
remove  pain  by  curing  the  disease. 

2.  We  are  here  taught  that  the  blood  of  the  sac- 
rificial animal  and  the  blood  of  Christ  purify  in  ex- 
actly the  same  sense — that  is,  both  take  away  the 
punishment,   but   neither  takes  away  criminality. 
This  is  flatly  contradicted  by  Heb.  ix.  9;  x.   2-4, 
and  many  other  texts. 

3.  We  are  here  expressly  taught  that  ' '  the  Old 
Testament  sacrifices  were  expiatory  " — that  is,  took 
away  liability  to  punishment.     But  the  Bible  says, 
"It  is  impossible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats 
should  take  away  sins ' '  in  any  sense.     Levitical 
sacrifices  purified  ritually  and  symbolically;  but  rit- 
ual purification  does  not  release  either  from  crimi- 
nality or  punishment.     If  it  did  either,  then  every 
Jewish   worshiper  and   every  baptized    person   is 
saved.     (See  texts  above  and  parallels.) 

4.  We  are  here  taught  that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ, 
just   like  the  Jewish  sacrifices,  was  "expiatory," 


NON- PENAL  THEORY.  185 

and  not  "  reformatory  " — takes  away  the  punish- 
ment, but  not  the  criminality  of  sin.  But  Heb. 
ix.  14;  x.  2,  makes  it  cleanse  the  conscience  or 
moral  states  of  men. 

5.  We  are  here  taught  that  "the  certain  result 
and  ultimate  design  in  both  cases  was  reconcilia- 
tion to  the  favor  and  fellowship  of  God."     If  this 
is  true,  then  the  salvation  of  all  Jewish  worshipers 
is  assured,   and  also  every  man  for  whom  Christ 
died. 

6.  Dr.  Hodge  extols  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  as  in- 
finitely superior  to  those  offered  by  human  priests. 
But,  according  to  his  teaching,  this  superiority  con- 
sisted chiefly  in  the  superiority  of  his  person  over 
the  sacrificial  victims;  for  both  had  the  same  effica- 
cy— both  were    "expiatory" — both   rendered   cer- 
tain the  reconciliation  of  those  for  whom  they  were 
offered. 

These  are  only  a  part  of  the  errors  comprised  in 
this  quotation. 


i86  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER  V. 

SECTION  I. — The  conclusions  reached. 

In  the  preceding  discussions  the  following  vital 
conclusions  have  been,  I  think,  fairly  proved  in  re- 
gard to  atonements: 

1.  Our  sins  against  our  fellow-men  may  be  con- 
fessed  and   pardoned   upon    repentance,   which   is 
always     implied    in    confession.       Repentance     is 
simply  a  return  to  duty  or  obedience,   or  to  that 
peaceful  state  which  our  sin  has  destroyed.     The 
disharmony  is  removed  by  the  removal  of  its  cause. 

In  such  cases  the  offender  may  be  his  own  atoner, 
or  may  have 'the  friendly  aid  of  a  mediator.  But 
in  no  case  is  the  pardon  based  on  a  punishment  of 
principal  or  substitute  by  the  offended  party.  In 
these  reconciliations  there  is  change  of  mental 
states,  but  no  radical  change  of  the  moral  nature. 
Hence,  no  supernatural  power  is  required. 

2.  We  have  seen  that  while  man  may  be  his  own 
atoner  in  reference  to  his  sins  against  his  neighbor, 
he  can  not  atone  for  his  sins  against  God.     God  is 
by  nature    holy,   but  we    are    by  nature    unholy. 
Hence,  reconciliation  requires  not  a  mere  change 
of  mental  states,  as  distinct  from  the  moral  nature, 
but  a  radical  change  of  man's  sinful  nature.     This 
sinful   or    corrupt   nature,    man   himself   can   not 
change — he  was  born  with   it;    he   can  as   easily 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  187 

change  the  color  of  his  eyes  or  his  form  or  any 
other  native  characteristic.  He  needs  to  be  newly 
created,  regenerated,  born  again.  God  alone  can 
produce  this  change  of  his  natal  moral  state. 

Hence,  he  can  not  make  atonement  for  himself, 
or  put  himself  into  harmony  with  God  and  thereby 
enjoy  immunity  from  his  sins. 

3.  We  have  also  seen  that  none  but  men  selected 
by  the   Almighty  himself  for  the   priestly  office, 
could  sanctify,  or  make  holy,  or  offer  sacrifices,  or 
make  atonements  for  any  body  or  any  thing;  also 
that  these  priestly  functions  extended  only  to  ritual- 
istic and  symbolical  consecrations,  sacrifices,  etc. 

In  regard  to  these  atonements,  two  important 
facts  were  fully  demonstrated: 

First,  they  did  not  change  the  moral  states  or 
moral  nature  of  any  thing.  Inanimate  things, 
temple,  altar,  etc.,  had  no  moral  nature  to  change, 
no  moral  guilt  to  remove.  Nor  could  they  of 
themselves,  independent  of  Messianic  atonement, 
have  any  such  effect  upon  priests  or  people. 

These  priestly  functions  expended  their  entire 
force  in  the  temple  service,  in  ritual  sacrifices,  sanc- 
tifications,  and  atonements,  all  of  which  were  sym- 
bolical of  the  great  Messianic  sacrifices,  and  of  a 
less  gorgeous  but  more  spiritual  worship. 

4.  We  have  seen  that  God's  priests  were  also  per- 
mitted, not  commanded,  to  make  atonement  for  spe- 
cial sins,  committed  against  the  theocracy.     Treason 
is,  generally  punishable  with  temporal  death.     God 
often  so  punished  it.     This  punishment  is  generally 
represented  as  the  product  of  God's  anger,  wrath, 


i88  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

or  indignation.  Never  as  the  vindication  or  satis- 
faction of  divine  justice. 

For  this  sin,  Moses  and  Aaron  and  Phineas  are 
said  in  a  few  instances  to  have  made  atonements. 
But  these  atonements,  while  real  and  adequate  for 
the  ends  intended,  had  no  relation  to  sins  against 
the  moral  law,  and  from  such  sins  they  had  no 
power  to  save. 

These  atonements  consisted  exclusively  in  turn- 
ing away  God's  anger — that  is,  in  making  him  mer- 
ciful or  propitious. 

I  suppose  it  would  not  have  been  unjust  to  de- 
stroy the  rebels,  having  a  right  to  do  what  he  wills 
with  his  own.  But  it  evidently  was  not  unjust  to 
spare  them. 

(Parenthetically  this  suggests  a  question  for  sub- 
stitutionists  to  solve.  What  will  they  do  with  jus- 
tice in  such  cases  ?  Dr.  Hodge  sees  the  difficulty 
and  sets  it  aside  by  identifying  justice  and  anger. 
But  this  strategy  involves  the  absurdity  that  God  is 
never  just  except  when  he  is  angry.) 

When  I  say  these  atonements  consisted  in  propi- 
tiation, I  mean  not  that  God  was  well  pleased  with 
the  seditious  people,  but  that  he  spared  them  for 
the  sake  of  his  faithful  and  consecrated  priests,  who 
thrust  themselves  between  God's  enkindled  indig- 
nation and  the  rebellious  people,  pleading  for  mer- 
cy, not  for  themselves  but  for  their  kindred,  and 
proposing  to  perish  with  them  if  they  must  perish. 

God,  it  seems,  could  not  punish  the  rebels  with- 
out punishing  his  consecrated  and  loyal  priests. 
He  must  of  necessity  either  punish  his  true  and 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  189 

faithful  priests,  for  the  sake  of  his  enemies;  or 
spare  his  enemies  for  the  sake  of  his  friends.  He 
chose  to  spare  the  wicked  for  the  sake  of  the  true 
and  tne  good. 

According  to  penalists,  God  can  not  pardon  the 
wicked  for  the  sake  of  the  good,  but  can  readily 
punish  the  good  for  the  sake  of  the  wicked. 

In  civil  jurisprudence  it  is  deemed  better  to  ex- 
cuse the  guilty  than  to  punish  the  innocent. 
Hence,  the  benefit  of  every  doubt  is  given  to  the 
accused.  But  in  theological  jurisprudence,  it  is 
deemed  more  just  to  punish  the  innocent  in  the 
place  of  the  guilty,  than  not  to  punish  at  all.  Jus- 
tice clamors  for  its  pound  of  flesh  and  must  have  it, 
however  much  blood  may  be  lost  in  getting  it.  ' 

SECTION  II. — The  facts  reverse  the  penal  theory. 

i.  The  facts  in  regard  to  these  atonements  and  all 
others  recorded  in  the  Bible  absolutely  reverse  the 
penal  theory  of  justice.  Instead  of  proving  that 
what  satisfies  justice  satisfies  God,  they  show  most 
clearly  that  what  satisfies  God  satisfies  justice. 
God  is  always  just,  always  true  to  his  purpose, 
which  is  both  benevolent  and  wise.  He  can  never 
be  unjust,  because  his  purposes  can  never  be  in 
conflict. 

But  what  becomes  of  the  dictum,  no  pardon 
without  prior  punishment,  in  view  of  these  atone- 
ments? The  penalty  threatened  was  instant  tem- 
poral death.  Did  a  single  man  ever  suffer  this  pen- 
alty after  atonement  had  been  made  ?  Or,  did  any 
one  ever  suffer  substitutionally  while  making  atone- 
ment? 


190  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

No;  these  priests  suffered  not  as  criminals,  nor  as 
legal  substitutes  of  criminals,  which  no  law,  human 
or  divine,  ever  allowed.  They  suffered  only  on  ac- 
count of  the  calamities  of  those  they  loved  as  they 
loved  themselves.  Theirs  was  the  suffering  of  in- 
tense agonizing  love  for  the  guilty;  love  turned  to 
deepest  grief,  sorrow  well-nigh  unto  heart-breaking. 

Think  of  Moses  on  the  mount  in  a  forty  days' 
fast,  prostrate  before  God,  confessing  the  sin  of  his 
people,  and  pleading  for  them,  saying:  "O  this 
people  have  sinned  a  great  sin.  .  .  .  Yet  now,  if 
thou  ivilt  forgive  their  sin;  and  if  not,  blot  me,  I 
pray  thee,  out  of  thy  book  which  thou  hast  ivritten. ' ' 

Perhaps  deeper  agonizing  love — more  thorough 
self-denial  for  others'  sake  was  never  expressed  in 
more  graphic  form. 

Not  for  the  sake  of  what  Moses  did,  but  rather 
for  the  sake  of  what  he  was,  as  manifested  by  this 
prayer,  God  spared  the  people  and  honored  Moses 
as  their  atoner.  What  is  true  of  this  atonement  is 
true  of  all  others  made  in  the  interest  of  sinful  hu- 
manity. They  consist  not  in  penalties,  but  in  the 
obedience  of  loyal  loving  hearts,  expressed  in  con- 
fession, intercession,  etc. 

If  the  atonement  or  propitiation  made  by  Christ 
is  penal,  then  it  is  contradictory  of  all  others  men- 
tioned in  the  Bible. 

If  these  atonements  made  by  Moses,  Aaron,  and 
Phineas  are  moral  in  kind,  and  that  of  Christ  is" 
penal  in  kind,  then  we  can  not  ascertain  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Bible  by  comparing  one  part  with  an- 
other, or  spiritual  things  with  spiritual  things. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  191 


CHAPTER  VI. 

SECTION  I. — The  penal  and  the  non-penal  theory 
of  Chris  fs  death  contrasted. 

Truth  and  error  are  generally  more  clearly  ap- 
prehended and  discriminated  when  set  in  contrast 
with  each  other. 

That  Christ  did  die  as  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins  is 
not  in  question.  That  he  was  made  a  curse  for  us, 
that  he  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree, 
that  he  came  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of 
himself,  are  facts  not  in  dispute. 

But  the  question  is,  In  what  sense  was  he  made  a 
curse  for  us,  or  bear  our  sins,  or  put  away  sin  ? 

The  penal  theory  asserts  that  Christ  was  made  a 
curse  for  us  in  the  sense  in  which  the  murderer  is 
accursed,  when  he  dies  on  the  scaffold;  that  he  was 
a  penal  sacrifice;  that  he  put  away  sin  by  suffering 
its  penalty. 

The  non-penal  theory  denies  and  affirms  radically 
different  views.  The  fundamental  points  of  differ- 
ence may  be  tims  summarized: 

i.  The  penal  theory  asserts  that  Christ's  death 
was  a  penal  sacrifice — made  primarily  to  satisfy 
justice,  as  the  most  central  attribute  of  God,  "to 
satisfy  which  is  to  satisfy  God  himself." 

The  non-penal  theory  denies  and  alleges  that  this 
sacrifice  was  primarily  purely  moral  in  character, 


192  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

and  satisfies  justice,  because  it  serves  God's  purposes 
in  meeting  the  exigencies  of  man's  moral  and  re- 
ligious condition. 

2.  The  penal  teaches  as  its  ground  principle  that 
all  pardon  is  the  result  of  punishment;  that  there  is 
absolutely  no  pardon  without  prior  punishment  as 
its  ground  and  reason. 

The  non-penal  protests,  and  alleges  that  sins  par- 
doned are  not  punished,  and  sins  punished  are  not 
pardoned;  that  pardon  is  exemption  from  punish- 
ment on  conditions  satisfactory  to  the  pardoning 
power. 

3.  The  penal  teaches  that  Christ's  death  propi- 
tiates only  because  it  was  a  punishment  for  the  sins 
of  mankind. 

The  non-penal  denies  that  there  is  any  propitia- 
tion in  penal  suffering,  and  affirms  that  Christ  has 
become  through  his  death  and  resurrection  the  pro- 
pitiation for  the  sins  of  the  world. 

4.  The  penal  teaches  in  its  only  self-consistent 
form  that  Christ  obeyed  the  divine  law  in  man's 
stead,  and  thus  satisfied  justice  in  man's  behalf,  and 
that  God,  as  an  act  of  justice,  regenerates  and  saves 
men. 

The  non-penal  protests,  and  affirms  that  it  is  im- 
possible for  one  person  to  obey  the  moral  law — or 
to  love  God  in  the  room  of  another*  and  to  suffer 
its  penalty  (which  is  the  consequence  of  not  loving 
him),  in  the  place  of  another;  that  Christ  obeyed 
the  divine  law  in  his  own  place;  that  his  personal 
righteousness  or  obedience  is  imparted  to  believers, 
in  the  act  of  believing,  as  was  Adam's  vitiated  nat- 


NOX-PEXAL  THEORY.  193 

ure  and  consequent  condemnation  imparted  to  us  by 
heredity. 

5.  The  penal  teaches  that  to  suffer  the  penalty  of 
the  law  is  to  obey  the  law,   and  to  satisfy  justice; 
that  Christ  thus  substitutionally  obeyed  the  law, 
and  thus  procured  the  pardon  and  salvation  of  all 
for  whom  he  died. 

The  non-penal  objects,  and  affirms  that  to  suffer 
the  penalty  of  the  law  is  not  to  obey  the  law,  or 
that  to  love  God  is  obedience,  but  that  to  suffer  the 
consequences  of  not  loving  is  in  no  sense  obedience; 
that  there1  is  no  obedience  in  penalty,  the  terms 
being  mutually  exclusive  one  of  the  other;  or,  if 
there  is  true  obedience  in  penalty,  then  Satan  and 
his  hosts  are  as  truly  obeying  the  divine  law  as  are 
the  saints  in  heaven.  We  might  as  well  say  that  a 
murderer  hanging  by  the  nack  is  obeying  the  law. 
The  law  requires  him  to  be  a  peaceable  citizen,  but 
the  hanging  man,  instead  of  obeying  the  law,  is 
suffering  the  consequence  of  not  obeying  it.  Mer- 
itorious penal  obedience  is  purely  a  double  absurd- 
ity, for  penalty  is  neither  obedience,  nor  is  it  mer- 
itorious. Or,  if  it  is,  then  of  necessity  gehenna  is 
full  both  of  merit  and  obedience. 

6.  The  penal  theory,  in  the  hands  of  most  of  its 
advocates,    teaches     that     Christ     substitutionally 
obeyed  the  law,  both  actively  and  passively — act- 
ively in  keeping  its  precepts  and  passively  in  en- 
during its  penalty;  and  that  this  active  and  passive 
obedience  constitutes  the  atonement. 

The  non-penal  objects,  and  affirms  that  a  passive 
obedience  is  a  contradiction  in  the  adjective — equiv- 
'3 


194  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

alent  to  a  passive  activity;  it  also  affirms  that 
Christ's  ante-crucifixion  life  was  only  such  as  per- 
sonal obligations  required  it  to  be,  and  constituted 
no  part  of  the  obedience  by  which  he  became  ' '  the 
Lord  our  righteousness. ' '  Hence,  in  the  Scriptures 
he  is  never  represented  as  saving  us  by  his  ante-cru- 
cifixion life,  but  only  by  his  suffering,  by  his  blood, 
his  cross,  his  post-resurrection  life. 

Romans  v.  18,  teaches  not  that  it  was  through 
many,  but  ' '  through  one  act  of  righteousness  the 
free  gift  came  unto  all  men  to  justification  of 
life." 

The  penal  theory,  when  even  thus  imperfectly 
contrasted  with  the  non-penal,  seems  to  be  impossi- 
ble and  utterly  incapable  of  a  rational  defense.  It 
has  the  support  neither  of  reason  nor  revelation. 

SECTION  II.  —  The  obedience  of  Christ — in  what 
sense  he  obeyed  the  law. 

Christ  was  born  of  a  woman,  born  under  the 
law  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law.  The 
law  under  which  he  was  born  is  the  great  moral 
law,  which  is  conservative  of  the  harmony  and 
happiness  of  the  moral  world.  ' '  Thou  shalt  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  .  .  .  and  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself"  (Deut.  vi.  5;  x.  12;  Matt.  xxii. 
37-39).  The  object  of  his  incarnation  was  to  re- 
deem (save)  them  that  were  under  the  same  law,  not 
by  destroying  the  law,  but  by  fulfilling  or  obeying 
the  law  (Matt.  v.  17).  This  he  did  to  the  last  jot 
and  tittle.  He  obeyed  it  unto  death  and  in  his 
death. 

Paul  says  (Phil.   ii.  8)  Christ  "  being  found  in 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  195 

fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself  and  became 
obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross." 

This  teaches  that  Christ's  death  was  an  act  of 
obedience  to  the  law — the  "one  act  of  righteous- 
ness (by  which)  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men ' ' 
(Rom.  v.  18),  or  the  one  act  of  obedience  by  which 
he  becomes  the  Redeemer  of  them  that  are  under 
the  law,  not  by  fulfilling  the  law  in  their  stead,  but 
by  making  those  that  trust  in  him  partakers  of  his 
own  personal  obedience,  or  righteousness. 

This  text  asserting  Christ's  obedience  unto  death 
is  relied  upon  as  authority^  for  the  doctrine  of  a 
passive,  in  contradistinction  to  an  active,  obedience, 
and  also  for  the  doctrine  that  his  death  was  a  penal 
sacrifice. 

This,  I  am  quite  sure,  is  a  misconception,  both 
of  the  nature  and  design  of  that  death,  and  leads 
by  necessary  consequence  to  false  views  as  to-  the 
precise  process  by  which  men  are  redeemed,  or 
saved.  As  we  have  seen,  it  saves  men  by  a  penal 
obedience,  or  righteousness. 

A  different  interpretation  is  therefore  required, 
and  the  following  readily  suggests  itself  as  a  better 
one.  As  before  said,  a  passive  obedience  is  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms;  so  is  voluntary  penalty  an  ab- 
surdity ;  for  voluntariness  and  penalty  are  mutually 
exclusive.  If  you  pay  a  fine  imposed  as  punish- 
ment upon  a  friend  for  crime,  you  are  not  his  sub- 
stitute. Your  payment  of  the  debt  is  not  a  penalty, 
but  a  benefaction  to  a  friend.  Penalty  and  benefac- 
tion differ  as  widely  as  the  poles. 

Christ' s  death  was  voluntary  obedience ;  therefore, 


196  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

neither  passive  nor  penal.  This  fact  is  plainly 
asserted  by  Christ  himself.  He  says,  "I  come  to 
do  thy* will,  O  God."  Again: 

"Therefore  doth  my  Father  love  me  because  I 
lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep  that  I  might  take  it 
again.  No  man  taketh  it  from  me;  I  lay  it  down 
of  myself.  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I 
have  power  to  take  it  up  again  "  (John  x.  17,  18). 

Certainly  no  act  of  his  ministry  was  more  purely 
voluntary  than  was  his  death,  which  was  in  the 
strictest  sense  an  act  of  obedience — not  passive,  but 
active — and  consequently  meritorious,  or  righteous 
— righteous  only  because  it  was  active.  How  a 
passive  act,  if  such  an  act  was  possible,  could  be  an 
act  of  righteousness,  is  inconceivable.  Just  as  well 
predicate  righteousness  of  the  movements  of  the 
wind  or  the  waves. 

SECTION  III. — In  what  sense  was  Chris? s  death 
an  act  of  obedience  or  righteousness  f  I  answer,  It 
was  preceptive  obedience — the  $oing  purposely, 
and  even  joyfully  (Heb.  xii.  2),  just  what  the  law 
required  him  to  do.  The  law  requires  obedience 
exactly  according  to  ability,  or  love  with  all  the 
heart,  etc. 

Christ  being  sinless  by  nature,  was,  of  course, 
capable  of  a  deeper  and  purer  love  for  God  on  one 
hand,  and  for  humanity  on  the  other,  than  even 
Moses  displayed,  when  on  the  Mount  he  prayed 
in  soul-rending  agony,  ' '  If  thou  wilt  forgive  their 
sin;  if  not,  blot  me,  I  pray  thee,  out  of  thy  book." 
If  Moses,  under  a  higher  degree  of  mental  agony, 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  197 

had  died  on  this  occasion,  he  would  have  died  of 
love,  or  obedience;  from  loving  God  and  his  neigh- 
bor as  himself — not  in  their  stead,  but  on  their  ac- 
count. 

We  know  that  the  human  organism  is  capable  of 
only  a  limited  amount  of  mental  disturbance.  Ex- 
cessive joy  and  excessive  grief  often  induce  death. 
Christ's  sinlessness  probably  rendered  him  pre-emi- 
nently capable  of  love  or  obedience  unto  death 
from  mental  suffering.  This  fact  seems  evident 
from  his  agony  in  the  garden,  where  his  sweating 
great  drops  of  blood  denotes  the  inception  of  death. 
This  liability  to  death,  he,  of  course,  had  power  to 
overcome.  But  this  was  not  his  purpose.  He  came 
to  lay  down  his  life  for  men — to  give  it  for  men. 
This  life  was  all  he  had  to  give,  all  he  could  give. 
This  obedience  unto  death  was  just  what  the  law 
required — not  a  jot  more  nor  less. 

But  did  the  law  actually  require  all  this  of  him  ? 
Could  it  be  satisfied  with  nothing  less  ?  I  answer, 
the  terms  of  the  law  required  him  to  love  God  with 
all  the  heart,  etc.,  and  his  neighbor  as  himself. 
His  life  was  the  exact  measure  of  ability.  You 
could  give  your  life  for  his  cause,  or  any  other,  if 
necessary,  but  you  can  give  no  more  than  this. 
Ability  is  the  exact  measure  of  the  obedience  re- 
quired. 

But  does  the  law  require  such  obedience  of  all  its 
subjects?  I  answer,  the  law  requires  us  to  love 
God  with  all  our  powers,  and  our  neighbor  as  our- 
selves, but  it  does  not  require  useless  sacrifices. 
The  most  acceptable  sacrifice  possible  to  you  or  to 


198  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

me  is  to  present  ourselves,  soul  and  body,  ' '  a  living 
sacrifice  to  God,  holy  and  acceptable,  which  is  our 
reasonable  service." 

Christ  teaches  (Matt,  xviii.  9)  when  a  sacrifice  is 
necessary,  the  less  should  be  sacrificed  for  the  sake 
of  the  greater.  Hence,  if  my  soul  could  be  saved 
only  by  the  sacrifice  of  my  animal  life,  fidelity  to 
God,  and  to  myself  as  well,  would  require  the  sacri- 
fice. 

But  equal  love  to  my  neighbor,  would,  under  the 
same  circumstances,  require  me  to  make  the  same 
sacrifice  for  him  as  for  myself.  But  mere  human 
sacrifices  can  not  sanctify,  nor  save  sinners.  Hence, 
mere  men  are  not  required  to  offer  themselves  in 
sacrifice  in  such  a  manner  and  for  such  a  purpose. 

But  Christ  was  not  a  mere  man,  but  the  God- 
Man.  This  union  of  the  human  with  the  divine 
rendered  him  capable  of  redeeming  humanity  by 
the-  sacrifice  of  himself.  This  the  law  required 
him  to  do,  just  as  it  would  require  me  to  sacrifice  my 
body  for  the  sake  of  my  soul,  if  it  could  be  saved 
in  no  other  way. 

He,  by  virtue  of  the  union  of  the  human  with 
the  divine,  was  capable  of  making  such  a  sacrifice 
for  men  as  .would  sanctify  them  and  render  accept- 
able to  God  those  united  to  him  by  faith.  This 
sacrifice  of  himself  the  law  required  him  to  make. 
His  doing  this  was  his  obedience  unto  death. 

[Obedience  to  human  law  is  sometimes  regarded 
as  a  low  and  menial  service — a  degradation  rather 
than  an  honor.  But  obedience  to  divine  law — the 
great  law  of  universal  love — is  the  highest  merit 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  199 

and  honor  possible  to  the  subjects  of  law  in  heaven 
and  earth.  Christ  was  not  dishonored  by  thus 
obeying  the  law  even  unto  the  death  of  the  cross, 
nor  did  he  so  deem;  but  "  for  the  joy  that  was  set 
before  him"  he  endured  the  cross,  despising  the 
shame.  ] 

Paul  asserts  this  obligation  of  Christ  to  humanity 
when  he  says  (Gal.  iv.  4):  "God  sent  forth  his  Son, 
born  of  a  woman,  born  under  the  law,  to  redeem 
them  who  were  under  the  law." 

Christ  himself  affirms  it  when  he  says,  after  his 
resurrection  (L/uke  xxiv.  26):, 

' '  Ought  not  Christ  to  have  suffered  these  things, 
and  to  enter  into  his  glory, ' '  and  (verse  46)  ' '  Thus 
it  is  written  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer 
and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day,  that  repent- 
ance and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in 
his  name  among  all  nations. ' ' 

Heb.  ii.  10,  teaches  the  same  truth.  "For  it  be- 
came him  for  whom  are  all  things,  and  by  whom 
are  all  things,  in  bringing  many  souls  unto  glory, 
to  make  the  captain  (author)  of  their  salvation 
perfect  through  sufferings."  'The  doctrine  here 
plainly  taught  is  not  that  Christ's  sufferings  in  any 
sense  save  men,  but  by  his  sufferings  he  became 
what  he  is,  namely,  the  author  of  salvation.  His 
death  (verse  14)  did  not  destroy  sin,  or  the  devil, 
but  through  his  death  he  became  the  antidote,  the 
destroyer  of  sin,  as  was  the  brazen  serpent  the  rem- 
edy, the  destroyer  of  the  works  of  the  fiery  serpents 
of  the  wilderness. 

It  is  simply  impossible  to  harmonize  this  text  and 


2oo  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

its  connections  with  the  penal  theory  without  do- 
ing unpardonable  violence  to  its  terms. 

We  thus  see  in  what  sense  Christ  was  obedient 
unto  death.  Certainly  it  was  by  keeping  the  law, 
meeting  the  requirements  of  the  law,  in  loving  his 
neighbor  as  himself,  and  not  in  suffering  the  penal- 
ties of  a  violated  law.  Obedience  implies  a  law 
whose  precepts  are  kept  in  their  integrity,  and  not 
a  law  whose  penalties  are  endured. 

If  you  tell  me  that  your  child  is  loving  and  obe- 
dient, and  I  understand  you  to  mean  that  your  child 
is  actually  suffering  punishment  for  disobedience,  I 
certainly  put  upon  your  words  an  unauthorized 
meaning,  and  do  both  you  and  your  child  injustice; 
but  a  greater  injustice  is  done  when  Christ's  obe- 
dience unto  death  is  understood  and  asserted  to 
mean  penal  suffering. 

SECTION  IV. — How  is  Christ"1  s  obedience  made 
available  for  others  ? 

i.  But  you  ask,  how  comes  this  loving  obedience 
unto  death  to  be  an  all-sufficient  sacrifice  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  brotherhood  of  humanity? 

I  answer,  not  because  it  was  the  act  of  a 
mere  man,  offering  his  blood  or  life  in  behalf  of 
others;  nor  because  it  was  the  act  of  a  divinely  ap- 
pointed priest,  commissioned  by  God  as  was  Aaron, 
but  because  it  was  the  act  of  the  God-Man,  or  God 
in  man,  and  the  grand  High-Priest — a  priest  conse- 
crated forever  because  a  priest  in  his  own  right,  of- 
fering his  own  blood  or  human  life  as  a  sacrifice  for 
the  sins  of  the  world,  that  is  to  say,  the  divine  in 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  201 

Christ  offering  the  human,  or  human  life  in  Christ 
as  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  humanity.  As  God  or 
divine  he  was  holy,  and  the  union  or  contact  of  the 
human  with  the  divine  sanctified,  made  holy  the 
human,  and  rendered  it  acceptable  to  the  divine, 
just  as  the  sanctified  altar,  which  sanctifies  every 
thing  that  touches  it,  renders  acceptable  the  sacri- 
fices placed  upon  it  (i  Cor.  vii.  14). 

2.  Now,  this  sanctified  human  nature  is  offered 
as  a  sacrifice  for  all  unsanctified  humanity,  and  be- 
cause an  accepted  sacrifice  sanctifies  that  for  which 
it  is  offered  (Heb.  ix.  13;  Rom.  xii.  i);  all  humanity 
is  sanctified,  or  consecrated  'to  God,  in  such  a  sense 
as  to  render  their  approach  to  God  possible. 

This  is  the  new  and  living  way  which  Christ  has 
consecrated  for  us  through  his  flesh  (Heb.  x.  19, 
20).  This  opening  up  of  the  new  and  living  way 
of  access  to  God  is  the  propitiatory  work  of  Christ, 
or  rather  the  means  by  which  Christ  becomes  the 
propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  world. 

For  the  sake  of  greater  distinctness,  I  recapitulate 
as  follows: 

1.  Christ  as  divine  is  truly  holy,  not  by  divine 
appointment,  as  was  Moses,  nor  by  formal  consecra- 
tion, as  was  Aaron,  the  altar,  etc.,  but  because  he 
is  God,  who  is  holy  of  himself. 

2.  Christ  is  as  truly  human  as  he  is  divine,  and 
his  humanity  is  sanctified  by  its  contact  or  union 
with  the  divine;  and  precisely  in  this  way  we  have 
the  divine  holiness  transmitted  from  God  to  Christ's 
human  nature,  and,  hence,  into  the  sphere  of  hu- 
manity. 


202  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

3.  As  a  priest  in  his  own  right,  he  is  adequate  to 
consecrate  by  sacrificial  offerings  in  a  higher  sense 
than    Aaron    or    any   other  mere    human    priest. 
Aaron,  by  sacrifice,  could  impart  to  altars,  men, 
etc.,  only  a  ritual  and  symbolical  holiness  or  sancti- 
fication.     But   Christ,  because  he  was  a  priest  in 
his  own  right,  could,  by  sacrifice  of  his  humanity, 
impart  a  real  holiness  and  his  own  spiritual  life  to 
those  whom  he  sanctifies.     (Heb.   xii.    10  ;    2  Peter 

i.  40 

4.  Whatever  is  offered  in  sacrifice  by  priestly  au- 
thority sanctifies  that  for  which  it  is  offered,  so  as 
to  render  it  acceptable  to  God  in  either  a  ritual 
or  real   sense.      (Hebrews  ix.    13;    xiii.    12;  John 
xvii.  19.) 

5.  Therefore,  when  the  great  High-Priest  made 
his  soul  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  he  sanctified  all  humanity 
in  such  a  sense  that  God  can  be  just  in  justifying 
them  that  believe  in  Jesus.     God  is  just  in  justify- 
ing such,  simply  because  they  by  faith  are  made 
partakers  of  Christ's  holiness,  or  nature,  or  spiritual 
life,  just  as  the  ingrafted  scion  partakes  of  the  life 
of  the  stock  into  which  it  is  inserted.     Because  of 
this  ethical  and  spiritual  union  with  Jhim,  he  is  the 
Lord,   their  righteousness.      This   is   salvation   by 
grace,  and  not  by  deeds  of  the  law. 

6.  But  you  wish  to  know  the  authority  for  the 
assertion  that  Christ  by  his  sacrificial   death   did 
sanctify,  set  apart,  or  appropriate,  humanity  to  God 
in  such  a  sense  that  each  individual  can  come  to 
God  by  faith  in  Christ  and  be  accepted  and  saved 
through  him.     This  authority  is  clear  and  explicit. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  203 

"Wherefore  Jesus,  that  he  might  sanctify  the  peo- 
ple with  his  own  blood,  suffered  without  the  gate." 
(Heb.  xiii.  12.)  (The  expression,  "own  blood"  is 
here  used  antithetically  to  the  blood  of  sacrificial 
victims  used  in  the  Aaronic  atonements.) 

7.  That  this  sanctification  is  not  the  personal, 
saving  sanctification  of  believers  is  proven  by  the 
facts  that  it  was  accomplished  at  the  time  of  his 
death,  that  it  was  irrespective  of  faith,  and  that  the 
people — all  nations  indiscriminately — are  the  ob- 
jects of  it. 

It  was  the  grand  antitype  of  the  atonement  made 
on  the  great  day  of  the  atonement,  when  the  high- 
priest  went  into  the  holy  of  holies  and  sprinkled 
the  blood  of  sacrifice  upon  the  altar  and  mercy-seat 
to  make  atonement  for  all  the  people;  by  virtue  of 
which,  and  only  by  which,  the  individual  could 
daily,  or  as  often  as  he  pleased,  during  the  succeed- 
ing year,  bring  his  individual  sacrifice  before  the 
altar  for  himself  and  his  family  as  he  might  desire. 
Be  it  remembered  that  the  priest  could  offer  sacri- 
fices for  the  individual  only  through  this  general 
atonement  made  in  the  interest  of  all  alike,  or  for 
one  person  no  more  than  another. 

In  like  manner,  as  this  sacrifice  made  on  the 
great  day  of  atonement  sanctified  all  the  Jewish 
nation,  and  secured  to  them  the  privilege  of  bring- 
ing their  individual  sacrifices  before  the  altar,  so 
this  sacrifice  made  by  Christ  without  the  gate  sanc- 
tifies all  humanity,  or  makes  propitiation  for  them 
so  that  every  man  may  offer  himself  and  his  gifts  to 
God  in  his  own  person  through  Christ.  This,  I  re- 


204  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

peat,  is  the  new  and  living  way  of  access  to  God, 
consecrated  for  sinful  humanity. 

SECTION  V. — But  this  new  and  living  way,  what 
is  it  ?  It  is  not  an  entity  or  a  power  of  itself.  It 
has  no  existence  apart  from  the  living  Christ  him- 
self, for  he  himself  is  the  propitiation,  and  the  way, 
the  truth,  and  the  life,  the  resurrection  and  the  life. 
We  do  not  come  to  God  through  atonement  or  any 
thing  else  apart  from  Christ,  but  we  come  to  God 
through  Christ  He  himself  is  the  true  and  living 
way. 

Two  facts  may  be  here  noted  in  relation  to  these 
atonements. 

First,  the  Aaronic  sacrifices  sanctified  and  atoned 
only  in  a  ritualistic  and  typical  sense;  but  the  Messi- 
anic sacrifice  sanctified  really — it  was  the  realization 
of  the  ideal. 

Secondly,  the  Jew  could  offer  his  individual  sac- 
rifices only  by  virtue  of  the  great  atonement,  as  no- 
ticed above. 

But  the  fact  that  this  great  atonement  was  made 
for  the  entire  nation,  did  not  compel  any  Jew  to 
bring  his  individual  offering  before  the  altar.  The 
great  sacrificial  offering  was  provided  .for  him, 
whether  he  willed  or  not.  But  his  individual  offer- 
ing was  a  matter  of  his  own  option.  It  was  a 
duty  which  he  could  refuse — a  privilege  which  he 
could  decline. 

So  exactly  is  it  of  individuals  in  reference  to  the 
sacrifice  made  by  Christ  for  humanity.  Salvation 
is  provided  for  us  independently  of  our  wishes,  but 
whether  we  avail  ourselves  of  it  is  not  without  re- 


NON-PENAL,  THEORY.  205 

sponsibility  to  ourselves.  It  was  the  complaint  of 
Christ  himself  to  the  prejudiced  Jew,  ' '  Ye  will  not 
come  unto  me  that  ye  might  have  life." 

For  further  support  of  the  foregoing  view,  of  the 
sacrifice  and  obedience  of  Christ  unto  death,  and 
objects  of  that  death,  see  Heb.  ix.  19-26;  Ex.  xxiv. 
5-8;  xix.  14. 


2o6  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SECTION  I. — No  penalty  found  in  atonement,  hu- 
man or  divine. 

1.  As  has  been  abundantly  shown,  there  is  no 
penalty   in    atonements    among    men.       Our  sins 
against  each  other  are  never  atoned  for  by  penalty; 
atonement  and  penalty  seem  quite  exclusive  one  of 
the  other.     Penalty  aggravates  breaches,  instead  of 
healing  them ;  makes  men  greater  enemies,  instead 
of  reconciling  them.     Even  where  crimes  are  pun- 
ished by  law,   the  punishment   reconciles  nobody, 
changes  no  moral  relations,  repairs  no   damages, 
conciliates  no  bitter  feeling. 

2.  The  atonements  made  for  the  holy  place,  for 
the  altar,  etc. ,  as  we  know,  required  no  penal  suffer- 
ing on  the  part  of  the  priests  who  made  them  or 
any  one  else.     These  atonements  show  beyond  the 
possibility  of  doubt  that  penalty  is  not  an  essential 
factor  in  atonement,  much  less  can  it  be  the  sum  of 
an  atonement  as  is  assumed. 

3.  The    poll-tax   atonement,    or   the   atonement 
made  by  the  payment  of  a  half  shekel  into  the 
Lord's  treasury,  involved  no  penalty,  because  obe- 
dience to  the  law  excludes  all  penalty.     Atonement 
in  this  case  protects  from  evil,  instead  of  delivering 
from  evil,  just  as  obedience  always  excludes  the 
penalties  of  disobedience. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  207 

4.  The    irregular   atonements   made   by  Moses, 
Aaron,  and  Phineas — all  God's  priests — all  utterly 
exclude  the  idea  of  penalty.     As  far  as  I  know,  no 
penalist   has   ever  attempted   to  prove  penalty  in 
these  cases.     Yet  it  is  common  to  assert  that  pun- 
ishment is  the  indispensable  basis  of  atonement — no 
punishment  no  pardon  is  the  fundamental  dictum 
of  substitutionists. 

5.  The  Messianic  atonement,  it  is  maintained, 
consists  partly  of  Christ's  active,  and  partly  of  his 
passive  obedience.     But  we  are  not  informed  as  to 
what  per  cent,  his  active  and  passive  obedience  re- 
spectively contributed  to  it;  ^nor  why,  if  his  active 
obedience  contributed  any  part,  it  could  not  contrib- 
ute all  that  was  required. 

Nor  have  the  advocates  of  the  theory  ever  thought 
it  proper  to  explain  how,  if  Christ — older  than  Ad- 
am— has  obeyed  the  law  preceptively  for  men,  there 
could  possibly  be  any  penalty  to  endure.  Obedi- 
ence excludes  penalty  as  inevitably  as  light  ex- 
cludes darkness.  To  say  that  a  man  can  keep  a 
law,  and  yet  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law  he  keeps, 
is  to  confound  obedience  and  penalty,  than  which 
no  conceivable  things  are  more  different.  This  pal- 
pable absurdity  of  the  theory  I  have  seen  no  attempt 
to  explain. 

It  seems  too  plain  to  require  to  be  said,  that  if 
Christ  as  a  substitute  for  men  actively  obeyed  the 
law,  then  from  sheer  necessity  there  could  be  no 
penalty  for  him,  or  any  one  else,  to  endure.  Hence, 
if  Christ  obeyed  the  law  preceptively,  there  is  no 
possibility  of  his  obeying  it  passively  or  penally, 


2o8  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

and,  consequently,  the  atonement  is  in  no  sense 
penal. 

This  glaring  absurdity,  inherent  in  the  theory 
itself,  penalists  can  not  avoid,  except  by  denying 
either  the  active  or  passive  obedience,  so  called. 

But  if  they  deny  active  obedience,  then  they  do 
no  more  than  get  sinners  out  of  gehenna;  they  can 
never  get  them  into  heaven — a  quasi  limbo  is  the 
best  they  can  do.  But  if  they  deny  passive  obe- 
dience, or  the  endurance  of  penalty,  they  surrender 
the  theory  itself,  and  there  is  an  end  of  the  conten- 
tion. 

We  have  shown  at  sufficient  length  that  a  passive 
obedience  is  a  contradiction — an  impossible  conceit, 
a  pure  scholastic  fiction. 

We  have  also  seen  that  Christ's  obedience  unto 
death  was  in  the  highest  sense  active,  or  voluntary, 
and  for  this  very  reason  not  penal ;  for  no  voluntary 
act  is  penal,  and  to  confound  voluntariness  and 
penalty  is  in  this  case  literally  to  confound  obedi- 
ence with  the  consequences  of  disobedience. 

Christ's  death,  it  has  been  shown,  was  in  the 
purest  and  in  the  highest  sense  an  act  of  obedience 
to  the  divine  law,  supreme  love  to  God,  and  love  to 
humanity  as  to  himself,  and  ' '  love  is  the  fulfilling 
of  the  law." 

Thus  far  we  have  been  able  to  find  no  penalty  of 
any  sort  in  any  atonement  relating  to  heaven  or 
earth,  to  God  or  to  man. 

SECTION  II. — A  few  texts  that  disprove  the 
penal  theory  briefly  considered, 

i.   If  Christ's  sufferings  were  penal — a  real  pun- 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  209 

ishment  for  sin — then  we  .are  required  to  believe 
that  God,  who  is  love,  delights  in,  takes  pleasure 
in,  inflicting  penal  woe  upon  the  innocent  and  the 
good.  For  we  are  told  (Eph.  v.  2)  that  "Christ 
hath  loved  us  and  hath  given  himself  for  us,  an 
offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God,  for  a  sweet-smelling 
savor. ' ' 

How  is  this?  If  Christ  suffered  the  pangs  of 
penal  woe,  if  God  poured  his  wrath  upon  him,  and 
took  pleasure  in  these  sufferings,  how  can  he  be  re- 
garded as  either  just  or  benevolent?  How  can 
penal  suffering  be  as  a  sweet-smelling  odor  to  any 
being,  less  than  satanic?  Yet  Christ's  sacrifice  to 
God  for  us  was  such.  The  sweet-smelling  savor  is 
a  form  of  expression,  manifestly  suggested  by  the 
odor  of  burning  incense.  It  was  by  the  burning 
of  incense  that  atonement  was  made  at  Baal-Peor 
which  turned  away  God's  anger.  This  incense  was 
prepared  according  to  a  divine  recipe,  was  most 
holy,  was  sacred  to  priestly  functions,  and  the  pun- 
ishment for  using  it  otherwise  was  death  (Ex.  xxx. 
22-38;  xxxvii.  29). 

The  high-priest  dare  not,  at  the  peril  of  his  life, 
approach  the  mercy-seat,  unless  it  was  enveloped 
in  a  cloud  of  burning  incense.  Nothing  in  all  the 
tabernacle  service  was  deemed  more  sacred,  and 
nothing  so  acceptable  to  God  (Lev.  xvi.  12).  It 
was  the  divinely-appointed  symbol  of  prayer,  inter" 
cession,  and  praise,  and  seems  to  be  associated 
with  the  prayers  of  the  saints  in  heaven  (Rev.  viii. 

3>  4)- 

As  was  the  odor  of  the  holy  incense  to  God  in 
H 


2io  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

turning  away  his  anger,  so  was  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  a  sweet-smelling  savor  unto  God — was 
pleasing  to  God. 

But  Christ's  sacrifice  for  us,  we  are  told,  was  a 
penal  sacrifice  i  Therefore,  his  penal  sufferings 
were  as  the  smell  of  holy  incense — well  pleasing  to 
God.  If  penal  agonies  in  the  substitute  are  well 
pleasing  to  God,  are  they  not  equally  so  in  the 
principal  ? 

God  himself  protests  against  this  pious  blas- 
phemy. 

"As  I  live,  saiththe  Lord  God,  I  have  no  pleasure 
in  the  death  of  the  wicked,  but  that  the  wicked 
turn  from  his  way  and  live."  (Ezekiel  xviii.  23; 
xxxiii.  u). 

If  God  protests  with  an  oath  against  having 
pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked,  what  right 
have  we  to  say  that  a  penal  sacrifice,  so  called,  was 
to  God  a  sweet-smelling  savor  ? 

God  has  no  pleasure  in  the  sufferings,  even  of  the 
wicked.  But  Christ's  sufferings  were  to  him  a 
sweet-smelling  savor.  Therefore,  Christ's  suffer- 
ings were  not  a  substitute  for  those  of  the  wicked. 

The  conception  that  God,  whose  nature  is  love, 
takes  pleasure  in  the  sufferings  even  of  incorrigible 
sinners  is  repugnant  to  the  instincts  with  which 
God  has  endowed  us.  But  how  much  more  abhor- 
rent to  our  nature  is  the  conception  that  God  should 
take  pleasure  in  pouring  the  wrath  due  to  incor- 
rigible sinners  upon  his  obedient  and  sinless  Son  ? 

If,  on  the  contrary,  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were 
such,  and  only  such,  as  come  from  love  and  fidelity 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  211 

to  God  and  to  men — such  as  the  good  may  experi- 
ence for  the  unfortunate  and  the  bad — 'then  we  can 
see  some  rational  ground  for  the  assertion  that 
Christ's  sufferings  for  humanity  were  to  God  as  a 
sweet-smelling  savor.  This  view  of  his  sufferings 
does  not  shock  nature,  nor  insult  justice,  nor  con- 
tradict the  facts  of  the  Bible. 

We  know  that  the  good  often  suffer  in  various 
ways  on  account  of  the  unfortunate  and  the  bad. 
Nor  is  it  unreasonable  that  these  sufferings  should, 
under  given  conditions,  be  agreeable  or  well  pleas- 
ing to  the  friends  of  those  for  whom  they  are  en- 
dured. , 

Fathers  and  mothers  often  rejoice  in  the  self-de- 
nying and  heroic  exertions  (involving  great  suffer- 
ing) of  a  son.  or  daughter  in  the  interests  of  the 
helpless,  and  even  the  undeserving,  members  of  the 
family.  It  was  very  natural  that  Mordecai  should 
rejoice  on  account  of  the  self-denial  and  heroic  con- 
duct of  Queen  Esther,  when  she,  at  the  peril  of 
life,  approached  the  Persian  monarch  in  the  interest 
of  her  people. 

Such  heroic  suffering  commends  itself  to  all  that 
is  godlike  in  humanity — is  well  pleasing  to  all  men 
who  have  the  common  instincts  of  humanity. 

Knowing  that  such  suffering  does  commend  it- 
self to  all  that  is  divine  in  men — that  it  is  pleasing 
to  men — we  may  very  well  believe  it  to  be  as  a 
sweet-smelling  savor  to  God.  That  it  is  so  is 
demonstrated  beyond  all  question  by  numerous 
Bible  facts. 

Moses'  self-sacrificing  spirit  expressed  in  his  brief, 


212  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

pathetic  prayer,  "If  thou  wilt  forgive;  if  not,  blot 
me,  I  pray  tkee,  out  of  thy  book,"  commends  it- 
self to  men  as  well  as  to  God.  That  it  was  well- 
pleasing  to  God — to  him  as  a  sweet-smelling  savor 
— is  proved  by  the  fact  that  God  for  his  sake  spared 
the  rebellious  people.  Moses  made  atonement  by 
his  fidelity  to  God  and  his  people — not  by  enduring 
the  penalty  of  the  law,  but  by  obeying  the  law, 
or  because  this  obedience  was  well-pleasing  to  God. 

All  the  atonements  named  in  the  Bible  were 
made  by  obeying  law — not  by  bearing  its  penalties. 
Obedience  alone  is  pleasing  to  God,  and  it  alone 
atones.  Christ's  self-sacrificing  obedience  to  the 
law  was  acceptable  to  God — was  pleasing  to  God. 
If  punishment  is  pleasing  to  God — is  a  sweet-smell- 
ing savor  to  him — then  we  must  believe  that  he  is 
equally  well  pleased  with  the  state  of  affairs  in  pan- 
demonium and  in  paradise.  From  this  conclusion, 
there  is  absolutely  no  escape,  if  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  substitutionary  scheme  of  atone- 
ment are  true. 

2.  Every  text  in  the  Bible  that  represents  Christ 
as  a  voluntary  agent,  acting  in  the  interest  of  hu- 
manity, is  a  protest  against  this  passive  and  penal 
obedience  theory,  for  the  sufficient  reason  that  what 
is  voluntary  can  not  be  either  passive  or  penal. 
This  has  been  previously  seen  and  need  be  here 
only  mentioned;  for  example:  "  L,o,  I  come  to  do 
thy  will,  O  God."  Christ  is  here  represented  as 
coming  with  the  purpose  to  do  God's  will,  not  to 
suffer  the  penalty  or  consequences  of  not  doing  it. 
It  is  simply  an  unpardonable  perversion  of  these 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  213 

plain  impressive  words  to  make  them  mean  that 
Christ  did  the  will  of  God  by  dying  as  a  penal  sub- 
stitute for  mankind.  But  the  penal  .theory  requires 
us  to  force  these  words  into  harmony  with  this  idea. 
The  same  absurdity  is  required  in  the  explanation 
of  all  similar  texts. 

3.  Every  text  in  the  Bible  that  specifies  the  ob- 
ject of  Christ's  mission  is  a  protest   against   the 
penal  scheme. 

For  example.  "Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save 
sinners."  How  save  them?  The  penal  theory  an- 
swers, By  bearing  the  punishment  of  their  sins  in 
their  stead.  The  answer  is  unnatural,  not  to  say 
impossible. 

Christ  ' '  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice 
of  himself."  Substitution  requires  this  to  mean 
that  Christ  came  to  suffer  the  punishment  of  sin  as 
a  penal  sacrifice. 

' '  For  this  purpose  the  Son  of  God  was  manifested 
that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil. ' ' 

Substitution  requires  us  to  say  that  Christ  de- 
stroys the  works  of  the  devil  by  enduring  the  pun- 
ishment of  all  the  sins  Satan  is  able  to  instigate. 
This  is  like  saying  that  physicians  destroy  disease 
by  suffering  the  pains  that  it  produces  in  their  pa- 
tients. 

4.  Every  text  that  gives  any  insight  into  the  char- 
acter of  Christ's  feelings  or  sufferings  is  a  protest 
against  penality. 

We  know,  if  we  know  any  thing  of  the  laws  of 
mind,  that  obedience  and  disobedience  to  law  are 
productive  of  radically  distinct  states  of  feeling. 


214  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

The  obedient  cau  not  by  possibility  experience  the 
feeling  which  is  the  necessary  consequence  of  dis- 
obedience; nor  can  the  disobedient  experience  the 
feeling  which  naturally  comes  from  obedience. 

We  also  know  with  equal  certainty  that  the  feel- 
ing which  comes  naturally  from  obedience  is  of  the 
nature  of  reward,  and  that  which  comes  from  dis- 
obedience is  of  the  nature  of  punishment. 

The  Bible,  reason,  and  universal  experience,  all 
concurrently  teach  these  facts,  ' '  Whatsoever  a  man 
soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap. ' ' 

Now,  Judas  and  Christ  both  died  of  mental  dis- 
turbance. Judas  confessedly  died  of  conscious 
guilt.  "  I  have  sinned  in  that  I  have  betrayed  the 
innocent  blood"  (Matt,  xxvii.  4).  Remorse  is  the 
swift  avenger  of  his  treachery.  Now,  was  it  possi- 
ble for  any  innocent  man  to  take  Judas'  place,  and 
take  either  his  criminality  or  his  punishment? 
Was  it  possible  for  the  sinless  Christ,  whom  he  had 
betrayed,  to  do  this?  If  Christ's  sufferings  were 
penal,  then  they  were  identical  in  kind  with  those 
of  the  remorse-devoured  Judas;  for  if  they  were 
not  the  same  in  kind,  then  they  could  not  be  those 
of  a  substitute,  for  every  crime  is  necessarily  de- 
terminative, both  of  the  kind  and  degree  of  pun- 
ishment consequent  upon  it. 

To  talk  of  the  substitution  of  one  kind  of  pun- 
ishment for  another  in  the  sphere  of  divine  law  is 
simply  to  prate  nonsense.  Just  as  well  sow  barley 
and  expect  to  reap  wheat,  or  to  talk  of  gathering 
figs  of  thistles.  If  Christ  died  as  a  substitute  for 
sinners  at  all,  he,  of  necessity,  endured  the  same 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  215 

punishment  in  kind  with  those  of  Judas,  and  mill- 
ions times  greater  in  degree. 

Another  ugly  feature  in  the  case  is  this:  Christ 
either  died  for  Judas  in  the  same  sense  in  which  he 
died  for  other  men,  or  did  not  so  die.  To  say  that 
he  did  not  would  be  to  make  him  an  actual  trans- 
gressor himself  in  not  loving  his  neighbor  as  he 
loved  himself  and  others,  his  mission  being  to  re- 
deem all  under  the  law.  This  hypothesis  makes 
the  sinless  Christ  not  sinless,  and  must,  therefore, 
be  discarded.  Hence,  it  follows  that  he  died  for 
Judas  in  the  same  sense  in  which  he  died  for  others. 
But  if  he  as  a  substitute  suffered  the  punishment 
due  to  those  for  whom  he  died,  then  he  and  Judas 
both  suffered  the  same  penalty;  the  penalty  was 
twice  inflicted — once  upon  Christ  and  once  upon 
Judas. 

Now,  I  feel  quite  authorized  to  say  that  there  is 
not  a  text  in  the  Bible  that  identifies  Christ's  feel- 
ings as  to  kind  with  those  of  Judas,  or  any  other 
criminal.  Yet,  if  he  was  a  substitute  for  men, 
and  every  sin  determines  its  own  kind  and  degree 
of  punishment,  then  he,  of  course,  endured  all  the 
different  kinds  of  punishment  possible  to  men,  and 
also  an  amount  equal  to  all  that  would  be  possible 
to  men.  But  the  Bible  authorizes  no  such  impos- 
sible conceits,  in  regard  to  the  nature  or  degree  of 
Christ's  sufferings. 

On  the  contrary,  it  authorizes  us  to  say  that 
Christ's  sufferings  were  radically  different  from 
those  of  the  criminal  in  every  sense;  as  different  in 
kind  as  those  of  Judas  and  the  first  martyr,  the 


216  NATURE  c:?  ATONEMENT. 

heroic  Stephen.  "I  have  betrayed  tJie  innocent 
blood,"  is  the  bitter  self-reproach  of  one.  "Lord, 
lay  not  this  sin  (murder)  to  their  charge,"  ex- 
presses the  forgiving  and  self-complacent  feelings 
of  the  other.  Note  a  few  texts  in  point: 

Heb.  v.  7-10:  "Who  in  the  days  of  his  flesh, 
having  offered  up  prayers  and  supplications  with 
strong  crying  and  tears  unto  Him  that  was  able  to 
save  him  from  death,  and  having  been  heard  for  his 
godly  fear,  though  he  was  a  son,  yet  learned  obedi- 
ence by  the  things  which  he  suffered;  and  having 
been  made  perfect,  He  became  unto  all  them  that 
obey  him  the  author  of  eternal  salvation;  named  of 
God  a  high-priest,  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek. " 

(1)  The  time  here  referred  to  when  prayers,  etc., 
were  offered  up  was  doubtless  the  agony  and  prayer 
in  the  garden. 

(2)  The  prayer  was  by  the  humanity  to  God. 

(3)  The  object  for  which  the  humanity  prayed 
was  not  the  prevention  of  natural  death,  but  deliv- 
erance from  the  dominion  of  death,  or  for  the  res- 
urrection of  the  body.     (This  is  not  in  conflict  with 
Matt.   xxvi.   39,  the  prayer  there  referring  to  the 
sufferings  adventitiously  imposed  upon  him  by  hu- 

•  man  hands. ) 

(4)  This  prayer  was  answered  for  his  godly  fear 
or  loyalty  to  God  and  fidelity  to  duty. 

(5)  Though  he  was  a  son,  yet  this  fact  did  not 
supersede  the  necessity  of  his  learning  obedience  or 
submission  by  actual  experience  in  a  conflict  with 
sin. 

(6)  By  this  obedience,  or  conflict  with  sin,  and 


NON- PENAL  THEORY.  217 

his  triumph  over  it,  he  was  perfected  or  completed 
as  the  author  of  salvation  to  them  that  trust  in 
him. 

(7)  Because  of  this  fitness  to  be  the  author  of  sal- 
vation acquired  by  the  obedience  which  he  learned 
by  the  things  which  he  suffered,  he  is  named  of 
God  a  high-priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek. 

The  whole  passage  teaches  that  Christ,  by  the 
obedience  which  he  learned  through  what  he  suf- 
fered, became  our  great  high -priest,  and  conse- 
quent!}' the  author  of  eternal  salvation  to  them 
that  obey  him.  But  it  is  pertinent  to  inquire,  is 
penal  suffering — penal  fire— ra  prerequisite  to  the 
priesthood?  If  it  w,  then,  of  course,  Christ  suf- 
fered it.  If  it  is  not,  then  Christ  did  not  suffer  it. 
The  bare  conception  that  Christ  was  named  of  God 
a  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,  because  he 
•endured  penal  wrath,  shocks  all  reason.  Why 
might  not  devils  become  priests  according  to  this 
theology. 

(8)  If  the  penalist  should  attempt  escape  from 
this  monstrous  consequence  of  his  doctrine  by  say- 
ing that  Christ  both  obeyed  the  law  preceptively 
and  at  the  same  time  bore  its  penalty;  and  that  he 
by  his  preceptive  obedience  becomes  our  great  high- 
priest,  it  is  a  sufficient  reply  to  say  that  this  is  im- 
possible; for  it  is  simply  a  contradiction  to  say  that 
any  personality  can  by  the  same  act  both  obey  the 
law  preceptively,   and  suffer  the  consequences  of 
not  obeying  it,  or  endure  its  penalty. 

Besides,  this  method  of  escape  assumes  that  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  were  duplex  in  kind — first,  such 


2i8  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

as  the  innocent  may  experience  through  love  or 
commiseration  for  the  guilty;  and,  secondly,  such 
as  the  guilty  themselves  actually  experience.  Or 
it  assumes  that  Christ  actually  experienced  a  double 
death — one  as  a  preceptive,  and  the  other  as  a  penal, 
substitute. 

The  theory,  it  seems  to  me,  is  hopelessly  crushed 
by  its  own  inherent  contradictions. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  219 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

SECTION  I. — Chris?  s  sufferings  like  those  of 
Moses. 

You  will  not  fail  to  observe  that  Christ  became 
the  author  of  eternal  salvation  by  a  process  strictly 
analogous,  as  to  mental  states,  to  that  by  which 
Moses  became  the  author  of  the  temporal  salvation 
of  his  people  at  Sinai,  and  -on  other  occasions, 
namely:  not  by  suffering  as  their  substitute,  but  by 
priestly  power,  through  prayers,  supplications,  and 
self-sacrificing  love  to  God  and  men. 

Before  leaving  this  text  it  seems  proper  to  say 
that  it  teaches  in  the  most  explicit  manner  that 
Christ  is  "the  author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all 
them  that  obey  him." 

This  conditions  salvation  upon  obedience;  or 
teaches  that  men  are  saved  not  by  the  death  of 
Christ,  which  was  for  all,  but  Christ  himself  saves 
those  that  obey  him. 

But  substitution  exactly  reverses  this  order,  and 
teaches  that  only  those  obey  to  whom  Christ  is  the 
author  of  eternal  salvation.  This  conditions  obe- 
dience on  salvation;  or  teaches  that  men  obey  be- 
cause they  are  saved  or  redeemed. 

The  Bible  plan  requires  as  its  psychological  com- 
plement the  doctrine  of  moral  freedom.  Substitu- 
tion requires  the  doctrine  of  moral  necessity. 


220  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

The  character  of  Christ's  suffering  is  unmis- 
takably indicated  by  these  words  (Heb.  xii.  2): 
u  Who  for  the  joy  that  was  set  before  him  endured 
the  cross,  despising  the  shame,  and  hath  sat  down 
at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  God. ' ' 

It  is  here  taught  that  Christ  voluntarily  and 
joyfully  encountered  death,  even  the  ignominious 
death  of  the  cross.  No  man  ever  voluntarily,  much 
less  joyfully,  encountered  penalty.  Penalty  is  nec- 
essarily involuntary,  for  any  suffering  voluntarily 
endured  in  the  interest  of  another  is  not  penalty, 
but  benefaction. 

No  joy  is  set  before  the  criminal,  either  for  him- 
self or  for  others.  Or,  if  good  comes  to  any  one 
through  penalty  endured  by  a  substitute,  of  course 
a  similar  good  must  come  from  it  when  endured  by 
the  principal.  Can  Satan  or  any  other  lost  soul  en- 
dure spiritual  death  for  the  joy  set  before  them  ? 

What  joy  is  set  before  Satan  or  other  lost  spirits 
to  enable  them  exultingly  to  endure  death  and  de- 
spise the  shame  of  that  condition  ? 

Substitutionary  suffering  is  in  no  way  less  cheer- 
less, or  hopeless,  as  we  have  repeatedly  seen. 

SECTION  II. — Infinite  personality. 

We  know  that  penalists  tell  us  that  Christ  as  an 
infinite  personality  could  suffer  an  infinite  penalty 
in  finite  time;  that  he  could,  therefore,  endure  the 
cross,  joyfully  anticipating  the  results  of  that  suf- 
fering in  the  salvation  of  those  for  whom  he  en- 
dured it. 

But  we  also  know  that  in  avoiding  the  rock  they 
plunge  into  the  whirlpool ;  for  they  make  God  suf- 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  221 

fer  the  penalty  of  his  own  law;  also  separate  effects 
from  their  causes,  punish  crimes  before  they  exist, 
and  involve  themselves  in  other  rugged  inconsist- 
encies. 

The  text  in  hand  can  never  be  fairly  harmonized 
with  the  doctrine  of  substitution. 

On  the  contrary,  if  we  allow  that  Christ  suffered 
in  the  interests  of  men,  and  not  in  the  place  of 
men,  or  as  a  benefactor,  not  as  a  substitute,  the  text 
is  in  itself  sufficiently  intelligible  and  highly  sig- 
nificant and  in  exact  harmony  with  facts  of  daily 
human  experience. 

Fathers,  mothers,  friends  daily  endure  suffering 
and  make  sacrifices  in  the  interest  of  others.  This 
they  do  for  the  joy  that  is  set  before  them — the  joy 
that  comes  from  benefaction — from  loving  others  as 
they  love  themselves. 

SECTION  III. — Chris  f  s  last  prayer  on  the  cross. 

Luke  xxiii.  34:  "Father  forgive  them,  for  they 
know  not  what  they  do, ' '  is  irreconcilable  with  the 
assumption  that  he  suffered  penally. 

If  substitution  is  true,  Christ  by  enduring  the 
penalty  in  the  place  of  sinners  did  by  that  act  really 
expiate,  pardon,  take  away  the  reatits  poenfs  of 
those  for  whom  he  suffered,  and  did  by  that  expia- 
tion or  pardon  bring  God  under  obligations  to  re- 
generate and  save  them. 

Now  if  this  is  true,  why  this  prayer  ?     Why  pray 
for  the  doing  of  a  thing  that  is  already  done  ?    Why 
ask  a  creditor  to  forgive  a  debt  that  is  already  paid, 
and  which  of  course  does  not  exist  ?     The  theory  - 
takes  all  significance  and  pertinence  out  of  this 


222  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

prayer  which  when  rightly  interpreted  is  a  peerless 
exhibition  of  moral  sublimity  and  a  model  for  the 
world. 

The  prayer  itself  teaches  by  necessary  implication 
that  Christ's  sufferings  did  not  expiate  sin  in  any 
sense  and  that  pardon  is  a  matter  of  grace  and  not 
of  debt. 

The  theory,  as  you  will  necessarily  perceive,  ren- 
ders all  prayer  a  useless  appendage  to  the  plan  of 
salvation;  for  if  Christ's  death  expiates  the  guilt  of 
mankind,  so  that  justice  requires  God  to  save  them, 
then  we  may  rest  assured  that  all  will  be  saved,  for 
the  "Judge  of  all  the  earth  will  do  right." 

To  say  that  he  conditions  the  salvation  of  those 
for  whom  Christ  died,  upon  prayer  or  any  thing 
else,  is  to  say  that  he  makes  unjust  demands. 

All  prayer,  according  to  the  penal  scheme,  is 
simply  asking  God  to  do  what  justice  requires  him 
to  do,  and  what  no  power  less  than  omnipotent  can 
prevent  him  from  doing. 

Christ's  utterances  after  his  resurrection  clearly 
evince  thr.t  his  sufferings  wei'2  those  of  a  benefac- 
tor, not  of  a  substitute. 

To  the  two  bewildered  disciples  he  said  (Luke 
xxiv.  26):  "Behooved  it  not  the  Christ  to  suffer 
these  things,  and  to  enter  into  his  glory?  " 

His  entrance  into  his  glory  was  the  result  of  his 
suffering  what  it  behooved  him  to  suffer,  or  what 
the  law  of  fraternal  love  required  him  to  suffer. 
Glory  is  the  infallible  consequence  of  duty  faithfully 
done. 

But  there  is  absolutely  no  honor,   no  glory  in 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  223 

bearing  penalty.  Penalty  endured  by  the  principal 
of  a  crime  is  purely  infamous,  nor  could  it  be  less  so 
in  the  substitute,  if  penal  substitution  was  possible. 

Duty  done  is  glory  won,  but  penalty  endured  is 
infamy  itself. 

Penalists  can  reconcile  this  text  with  their  theory 
only  by  confounding  substitution  with  benefaction, 
which,  as  has  been  shown,  is  an  unpardonable 
abuse  of  terms. 

Christ  also  says  (Luke  xxiv.  46,  47;  see  Acts 
xvii.  3) : 

"Thus  it  is  written,  that  Christ  should  suffer 
and  rise  again  from  the  dead  the  third  day;  and 
that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be 
preached  in  his  name,  beginning  at  Jerusalem." 

This  teaches  that  Christ's  resurrection  as  well  as 
his  death  was  necessary  that  repentance  and  remis- 
sion of  sins  might  be  preached  in  his  name. 

No  resurrection,  no  repentance,  no  remission,  no 
salvation.  If  Christ  is  not  risen,  then  he  is  in  no 
sense  the  Savior  of  the  world,  (i  Cor.  xv.) 

But  this  fact  is  in  bold  conflict  with  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  substitutionists.  For  it  is  not 
claimed  by  any  that  Christ's  resurrection  consti- 
tuted any  part  of  the  substitutionary  penalty  which 
he  is  alleged  to  have  suffered. 

On  the  contrary,  it  is  alleged  that  his  death  expi- 
ated the  guilt,  the  reatus  poentz,  of  those  for  whom 
he  suffered,  and  that  this  death,  because  it  is  a  full 
satisfaction  to  justice,  brings  God  under  obligation 
to  save  them  from  their  moral  pollution,  or  reatus 


224  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

Hence,  according  to  the  theory,  the  salvatk...  of 
those  for  whom  Christ  died  is  infallibly  insured  by 
the  death  of  Christ,  and  quite  independently  of  the 
resurrection  of  Christ.  Or,  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
has  only  an  adventitious,  and  not  a  vital  connec- 
tion with  the  plan  of  salvation.  His  death  secures 
every  thing  according  to  the  theory,  and  his  resur- 
rection and  intercession  nothing  not  actually  se- 
cured by  his  death.  Hence,  a  dead,  unrisen  Christ 
would  have  been  just  as  truly  a  Savior  as  is  the 

r  risen,  living,  interceding  Christ.  I  repeat  with 
emphasis  that  the  substitutionary  theory  requires 
no  risen  or  living  interceding  Christ.  It  is  not  the 
living  Christ  that  saves,  but  Christ's  death  that  in- 
sures salvation. 

If  sin  is  a  debt,  and  Christ  has  paid  the  debt, 
then  the  payment  of  itself  saves  the  debtor  from 
his  indebtedness,  whether  Christ  is  risen  or  not. 

If  sin  is  a  crime,  and  Christ  has  expiated  it  by 
his  death,  then  the  act  of  expiation  saves  the  crim- 
inal, whether  Christ  is  risen  or  not  risen. 
'  If  I  owe  a  debt  in  bank,  and  my  friend  pays  the 
debt,  that  act  of  itself  saves  me  from  all  liabilities 
to  the  bank,  though  that  friend  may  die  instantly. 
His  survival  of  the  act  of  payment  is  not  necessary 
to  my  release  from  obligation  to  the  creditor.  I 
am  equally  exempt,  whether  he  survives  or  not. 

So  it  would  be  if  a  friend  could  suffer  a  penalty 
in  my  place.  My  discharge  is  in  no  sense  condi- 
tioned upon  his  survival  of  the  act,  but  exclusively 
upon  his  enduring  the  penalty. 

These  plain  facts  show  that  substitution  when 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  225 

held  firmly  to  its  fundamental  postulates  requires 
no  risen  Christ,  for  Christ  would  be  as  truly  a  Sa- 
vior if  dead  and  unrisen  as  he  is  now  in  his  risen 
and  living  state. 

Of  course  substitutionists  do  not  formally  deny 
the  necessity  of  Christ's  resurrection;  but  the 
charge  against  them  is  that  they  allege  principles 
which  make  his  resurrection  an  unnecessary  factor 
in  the  plan  of  salvation. 

The  Bible,  on  the  contrary,  conditions  the  whole 
scheme  of  salvation  on  his  resurrection.  Christ 
himself  makes  it  the  condition  precedent  to  repent- 
ance and  remission  of  sins.  Paul  asserts  (Acts  xvii. 
3)  the  necessity  of  his  resurrection,  and  tells  us  (i 
Cor.  xv.  17)  that  "if  Christ  hath  not  been  raised, 
your  faith  is  vain ;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins. ' ' 

According  to  substitutionists,  Christ's  death  sat- 
isfied justice,  expiated  human  guilt,  and  infallibly 
insured  the  salvation  of  all  for  whom  he  died. 

According  to  the  Bible,  Christ,  by  the  sacrifice  of 
himself  in  loving  obedience  to  the  law  of  filial  love, 
and  by  his  resurrection,  became  the  propitiation  for 
the  sins  of  humanity,  and  the  actual  Savior  of  all 
that  believe  in  him. 
'5 


226  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

THE   TABERNACLE   ATONEMENTS — PRELIMINARY 

STATEMENTS. 

1.  I  have  now  examined,  with  some  care,  and  at 
considerable  length,   various  irregular  atonements 
mentioned  in  the  Bible,  merely  alluding  to  the  tab- 
ernacle atonements;  also  considered  what  is  com- 
monly, but  somewhat  loosely,  called  the  atoning 
work  of  Christ;  particularly  the  facts  relating  to 
the  nature,  or  character  of  his  sufferings,  or  death; 
also  indicated  some  objections  to  the  penal  theory, 

All  this  I  have  done  for  the  purpose  of  enabling 
us  to  ascertain,  as  nearly  as  possible,  just  what  it  is 
that  constitutes  the  great  atonement;  or,  rather, 
how  Christ  himself  becomes  the  propitiation  for  the 
sins  of  the  world. 

2.  We  thus  far  have  no  instance  in  which  atone- 
ment was  made  by  bearing  the  penalty,  either  by 
the  principal  offender,  or  by  a  substitute.     We  have 
found  no  case  of  substitution  with  its  double  impu- 
tation— no  change  of  places  between  the  innocent 
and  the  guilty. 

3.  On  the  contrary,  in  every  instance  in  which 
atonement  is  said  to  be  made  in  the  interest  of  sin- 
ful men,  the  atoner  acted  the  part  of  a  benefactor, 
not  of  a  substitute. 

The  atoner  in  no  case  suffered  the  penalty  of  a 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  227 

broken  law,  but  suffered  as  the  good  can  and  do 
suffer  for  the  bad,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  in  obe- 
dience to  the  preceptive  side  of  the  law,  which  re- 
quires us  to  love  our  neighbor  as  ourselves. 

4.  In  no  case  did  atonement  clTect,  or  in  any  way 
change,  the  legal  or  moral  state  of  those  for  whom 
it  was  made. 

SECTION  I. — No  penalty  in  tabernacle  atone- 
ments. 

But  penalists  claim  that  the  regular  atonements 
of  the  tabernacle  service  both  illustrate  and  prove 
that  all  atonement  rests  on  penalty,  or  that  there  is 
no  pardon  without  punishment. 

But,  if  I  have  not  greatly  deceived  myself,  the 
facts  connected  with  these  tabernacle  atonements 
are  strongly  adverse  to  the  notion  of  penality.  They 
may  be  enumerated  as  follows: 

1.  The  sacrificial  victim  must  be  perfect  of  its 
kind — without  fault  or  blemish. 

2.  In    sacrifices   for    individuals,    the  worshiper 
must  bring  the  victim  to  the  altar. 

3.  The  hands  of  the  worshiper  must  be  laid  upon 
the  head  of  this  victim. 

4.  The  victim  must  be  killed  by  the  officiating 
priest. 

5.  Its  blood  must  be  sprinkled  upon  the  altar, 
which  sanctified  it  and  made  it  acceptable  to  God, 
or  propitiatory   in   the   interest  of  the  worshiper. 
On  the  great  day  of  atonement,  when  the  sacrifice 
was  made  for  all  the  people  indiscriminately,  the 
blood  must  be  sprinkled  by  the  high-priest  upon 


228  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

the  ark  of  the  covenant,  or  mercy-seat  in  the  holy 
of  holies  (see  Lev.  xvi.). 

These  are  the  facts.  How  are  they  to  be  ex- 
plained? 

In  this  manner,  according  to  the  penal  theory: 

1.  The  faultless  victim  is  a  type  of  Christ,  and  is 
also  the  ideal  substitute  for  the  sinful  worshiper  who 
brings  it  to  the  altar. 

2.  The  sinner,  in  laying  his  hands  upon  its  head, 
has  his   sins  and  guilt  transferred  to  the  victim, 
which  thereby  becomes  putatively  guilty,  and  a  fit 
subject  for  a  penal  death,  or  for  gehenna. 

3.  The  victim,   thus   substitutionally  guilty,   is 
now  delivered  to  the  officiating  priest,  who  kills  it. 
In  its  death  agonies,  it  is  in  gehenna,  or  is  suf- 
fering the  punishment  due  to  the  sins  of  the  of- 
ferer. 

4.  The  priest  sprinkles  its  blood  upon  the  altar, 
which  sanctifies  whatever  touches  it. 

5.  Justice  having  received  plenary  satisfaction  by 
this  penal  death,  God  is  propitiated — atonement  is 
made,  and  the  worshiper's  sins  are  expiated,  or  par- 
doned— pardoned,  because  first  punished  substitu- 
tionally in  the  victim. 

I  think  no  penalist  can  object  to  this  analytical 
statement  of  his  theory.  If  we  content  ourselves 
with  reading  it  without  thinking,  we  may  be  satis- 
fied with  it  and  blindly  accept  it  as  true.  But  if 
we  dare  to  think,  its  absurdities  soon  unsettle  our 
confidence  in  it.  A  rational  faith  requires  some- 
thing more  reliable  as  its  foundation  than  mere 
dogmatic  assertion. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY. 


229 


SECTION  II. — Objections  to  the  penal  explana- 
tion. 

I  reject  this  explanation  of  the  tabernacle  atone- 
ment for  many  reasons. 

i.  It  makes  the  sacrificial  kid  represent  two  con- 
tradictory things  at  the  same  time,  viz. :  the  holi- 
ness and  innocence  of  Christ,  and  the  unholiness 
and  guilt  of  the  sinful  worshiper. 

The  victim  is  the  type  of  the  highest  purity 
possible;  and  yet,  marvelous  to  tell,  it  is  a  fit  sub- 
ject of  penal  wrath — made  so  by  the  magic  power 
of  substitution,  or  double  imputation. 

Of  course  this  guilt  and  its  punishment  were  real, 
and  not  merely  ideal;  that  is,  the  innocent  became 
actually  guilty  by  the  transfer  to  it  of  the  sins  of  the 
worshiper;  for  its  death,  or  punishment,  was  real, 
and  of  necessity  its  guilt,  which  was  the  cause  of 
death,  was  real;  or,  real  effects  imply  real  causes. 
Or,  if  we  say  that  the  death,  the  punishment,  was 
real,  but  the  guilt  was  only  ideal,  then  we  have  a 
real  effect  with  only  an  ideal  cause,  or  rather,  a  gen- 
uine effect  without  a  cause. 

Of  course  the  penalist  will  not  admit  that  the 
guilt  of  the  kid  was  real — this  would  be  too  severe 
a  shock  to  common  sense;  but  let  him  explain,  if 
he  can,  how  there  can  be  a  real  penal  death  without 
a  crime  to  be  punished. 

But  if  substitution  is  competent  to  furnish  real 
punishments  without  real  sins  to  be  punished,  can 
it  not  furnish  sins  wholly  exempt  from  punishment  ? 
If  it  can  separate  causes  and  effects,  and  make  them 
independent  of  each  other  so  as  to  give  us  real  ef- 


230  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

fects  without  causes,  it  certainly  can  give  us  causes 
without  effects;  and  by  this  means  banish  all  penal 
suffering  from  the  moral  world. 

2.  Though  the  sacrificial  kid  was  a  symbol  of  the 
sinless  Christ,  yet,  if  it  "  bore  the  sin  of  the  offerer 
and  died  in  his  stead,"  as  Dr.   Hodge  affirms  (p. 
506),  then,  of  course,  there  is  no  causal  connection 
between  sin  and  punishment,  and  the  doctrine  of 
moral  retribution  admits  of  no  rational  or  scientific 
statement  or  defense. 

If  the  moral  government  is  sufficiently  pliable  to 
allow  a  kid,  incapable  of  guilt  in  any  sense,  to 
bear  the  sin  of  the  offerer  and  to  die  in  his  stead, 
then  we  have  a  penal  death  without  sin;  and  why 
might  we  not  have  sin  without  a  penal  death? 
The  penalist,  I  think,  can  not  answer. 

Such  are  some  of  the  logical  consequences  of 
making  the  death  of  the  kid  substitutionary,  or 
penal. 

(As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  momentary  sufferings 
of  the  kid,  so  far  from  representing  the  penal  an- 
guish of  lost  souls,  was  of  itself  not  of  the  slight- 
est significance  in  the  ritual  service.  Not  the  suf- 
fering of  the  kid,  but  its  blood — its  life — was  what 
was  required.  If  its  blood — its  life — could  have 
been  taken  without  any  pain  at  all,  it  would  have 
been  just  as  effective  as  if  it  had  endured  a  thou- 
sand-fold more  suffering  than  it  really  did.) 

3.  The  bare  idea  that  the  momentary  sufferings 
of  the  slaughtered   kid   symbolizes   eternal   death 
would  be  scouted  as  ridiculous,  if  it  had  not  been 


NOX-PENAL  THEORY.  231 

made  respectable  by  the  patronage  of  illustrious 
names. 

If  we  drop  the  type,  and  give  attention  to  the 
antitype,  we  find  it  as  hard  to  believe  that  Christ 
was  a  penal  substitute  for  sinners  as  to  believe 
that  the  sacrificial  kid  was  such  a  substitute. 

We  can  find  no  penality  in  the  sacrificial  victim, 
and  if  we  find  none  in  the  type,  we  are  not  author- 
ized to  assume  any  in  the  antitype. 

Moreover,  the  very  thought  of  penal  substitution 
is  so  repugnant  to  reason  and  to  the  noblest  in- 
stincts of  our  nature  that  it  is  never  admitted  in 
human  law. 

Christ  could  not  suffer  the  punishment  due  to 
sin  and  guilt  unless  he  himself  first  became  guilty. 
This  is  conceded  by  penalists  themselves.  God, 
they  admit,  could  not  punish  the  innocent,  because 
it  would  be  unjust.  But  he  can  impute  guilt  to 
the  innocent,  and  then  punish  him  for  this  fictitious 
imputed  guilt.  Christ  thus,  by  this  marvelous  fic- 
tion, becomes  guilty,  and  is  justly  punished  for 
millions  of  sins  that  he  never  committed. 

Dr.  Hodge  says  (p.  504) :  ' '  To  bear  sin  is  to  bear 
the  guilt  and  punishment  of  sin."  "He  bore  the 
guilt  of  our  sins  and  endured  the  penalty  in  our 
stead." 

Omnipotence  himself  could  not  inflict  penal 
wrath  upon  him  without  first  converting  him  into 
an  actual  rebel  and  filling  his  heart  with  hatred  to 
God,  or  else  by  reversing  the  respective  conse- 
quences of  obedience  and  disobedience,  which  he 
himself  has  established.  It  is  too  obvious  to  need 


232  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

elaboration,  that  it  is  simply  impossible  for  the  in- 
nocent, for  any  cause,  or  by  any  means,  to  take,  or 
be  made  to  take,  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  the 
disobedient,  and  the  guilty  to  take  the  innocence 
and  the  felicity  of  the  obedient. 

If  the  theory  of  substitution,  with  its  double  im- 
putation, is  true,  then  there  is  110  guaranty  that 
heaven  and  hell  will  not  change  places  withotit  the 
knowledge  or  consent  of  either. 

If  true,  there  is  properly  no  plan  of  salvation  at 
all,  but  a  capricious  salvation  without  any  plan 
outside  of  the  secret  purposes  of  the  Creator;  or, 
if  there  is  a  revealed  plan,  still  it  is  obviously 
true  that  it  is  wholly  irrespective  of  the  laws  of  the 
human  mind,  having  no  pertinency  or  adaptation 
to  man's  nature  as  a  free  moral  being,  who  has  as 
little  power  over  his  own  destiny  as  he  had  over  his 
own  creation.  But  this  unrevealed  purpose  of  God 
in  regard  to  the  individual,  is  no  plan  to  him  at  all. 
All  the  individual  can  do  is  to  act  out  the  secret 
purpose  of  God,  and  bide  his  predetermined  des- 
tiny. If  Christ  took  his  guilt  and  suffered  its  pen- 
alty, then  he  should  esteem  himself  fortunate,  not 
virtuous;  but  if  Christ  happens  not  to  be  his  sub- 
stitute, then  he  should  consider  himself  unfortu- 
nate, not  criminal;  for  necessity,  which  is  an  indis- 
pensable correlate  of  substitution,  excludes  the  pos- 
sibility, both  of  virtue  and  of  vice. 

Such  are  some  of  the  consequences  which  come 
logically  out  of  the  assumption  that  the  sufferings 
of  the  sacrificial  kid  symbolize  the  horrors  of  end- 
less death 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  233 

SECTION  III. — The  priest  becomes  an  executioner 
'before  he  acts  the  part  of  Mediator. 

Another  reason  for  rejecting  the  substitution ist's 
explanation  of  tabernacle  atonement  is  that  it 
makes  the  officiating  priest  an  executioner,  rather 
than  a  mediator. 

(i)  The  priest,  according  to  the  theory,  receives  the 
victim,  all  covered  with  substitutionary  guilt,  at 
the  hands  of  the  offerer,  and  proceeds  to  kill  it — 
that  is,  to  inflict  upon  it  the  penalty  due  to  the 
offerer.  This  act  of  the  priest  puts  the  victim 
symbolically  into  gehenna  or  into  the  same  spirit- 
ual death  due  to  the  offerer. 

Thus  the  priest,  by  inflicting  the  penalty,  satisfies 
justice,  to  satisfy  which,  we  are  told,  is  to  satisfy 
God. 

To  do  this  is  certainly  all  that  can  be  reasonably 
required  in  order  to  salvation — angels,  I  suppose, 
can  do  no  more  than  satisfy  justice  and  God. 

It  is  thus  as  clear  as  noonday,  that  if  substitution 
is  true,  no  priestly  functions  are  required;  they  are, 
in  fact,  quite  supererogatory;  there  is  no  place  for 
them;  an  executioner  is  all — absolutely  all — the 
theory  requires. 

I  persistently  urge  this  fact,  if  substitution  is 
true,  then  all  priestly  or  mediatorial  offices  are  a 
useless  appendage  to  the  plan  of  salvation. 

If  a  debt  is  fully  paid,  that  fact  of  itself  releases 
the  debtor.  No  mediator  or  intervener  is  neccessary 
to  complete  the  release;  for  there  is  really  no  obli- 
gation from  which  to  be  released. 

Or,  if  an  executioner  has  inflicted  upon  a  crim- 


234  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

inal  the  full  penalty  authorized  by  law,  that  fact 
releases  the  criminal  from  all  further  liability  for' 
the  offense.  To  condition  his  release  upon  other 
offices  than  those  of  the  executioner  by  whom  the 
penalty  has  been  inflicted  would  be  a  crime  against 
the  criminal  himself. 

I  repeat,  the  theory  requires  no  priest.  An  exe- 
cutioner is  the  only  functionary  it  requires.  This 
is  logically  avowed  in  its  fundamental  postulate: 
No  punishment,  no  pardon. 

But  penalists  know  full  well  that  Christ  is  de- 
clared to  be  a  priest  forever,  and  that  salvation  is 
ascribed  to  him  because  of  his  priestly  power.  It 
therefore  becomes  necessary  in  order  to  avoid  a  pal- 
pable incongruity  between  the  doctrine  of  substitu- 
tion and  the  priestly  offices  of  Christ,  to  call  his 
sacrifice  of  himself  for  the  sins  of  the  world  a  ' '  pe- 
nal sacrifice. ' '  A  penal  sacrifice  ?  A  monstrosity 
I  venture  to  say  the  world  never  saw,  and  never 
will;  because  it  is  a  contradiction  in  the  adjective, 
and  a  thing  in  itself  impossible. 

All  sacrifices  are  acts  of  religious  worship.  No 
acts  of  religious  worship  are  or  can  be  penal.  No 
penalties  are  or  can  be  acts  of  religious  worship. 
All  acts  of  worship  are  voluntary.  No  penalties 
are  or  can  be  voluntary,  as  has  been  shown.  Sacri- 
fice is  an  act  expressive  of  obedience,  reverence, 
love  to  God.  Penalty  is  an  expression  of  God's 
displeasure  against  the  disobedient.  A  penal  sac- 
rifice / !  Think  of  it,  and  explain  it,  if  you  can. 
Shall  we  say  it  is  an  act  of  religious  worship,  which 
has  the  effect  of  a  penalty  ?  Then,  the  less  wor- 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  235 

ship,  the  less  penalty.  Or,  shall  we  say  it  is  a 
penalty  which  has  the  effect  of  religious  worship  ? 
Then  Satan  and  his  hosts  fare  about  as  well  as  the 
worshiping  angels. 

If  penalists  can  bridge  the  chasm  between  their 
theory  and  the  priestly  offices  of  Christ  only  by  al- 
leging the  doctrine  of  penal  sacrifices,  it  seems  to 
me  better  not  to  attempt  to  bridge  the  chasm  at  all, 
for  two  errors  are  more  difficult  of  plausible  defense 
than  one.  Nor  does  it  seem  to  me  possible  for 
human  ingenuity  to  show  that  the  penal  theory  re- 
quires or  admits  any  other  functionary  than  an  ex- 
ecutioner. Nor  does  the  character  of  the  execu- 
tioner seem  to  be  a  vital  factor  in  the  transaction. 
if 
Punishment  is  what  is  imperatively  required.  It 

does  not  matter  upon  whom  it  falls,  whether  upon 
principal  or  substitute,  and  we  hence  infer  that  it 
could  not  matter  by  whom  it  is  inflicted. 

(2)  The  priest  having  discharged  the  duties  of  an 
executioner,  and  put  the  victim  into  torment,  then 
sprinkles  its  blood  upon  the  altar,  which  sanctifies 
whatever  touches  it,  and  renders  it  acceptable  to 
God,  and  the  offender  whose  sins  have  been  pun- 
ished in  the  sufferings  of  the  substitute  is  pardoned 
and  saved.  But  why  this  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
upon  the  altar?  Of  what  advantage  can  it  or  any 
other  priestly  performance  be  to  God,  or  justice,  or 
the  worshiper,  or  his  substitute?  Justice  has  re- 
ceived all  it  claims,  and  is  satisfied  with  the  suffer- 
ings inflicted  upon  the  substitute.  God  is  satis- 
fied because  justice  is  satisfied,  and  is,  of  course, 
rropitiated;  the  worshiper  having  transferred  his 


236  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

guilt  to  his  substitute  is  pardoned  and  saved;  and 
the  poor  substitute  is  hopelessly  lost,  unless  a  sub- 
stitute is  provided  that  can  relieve  it  of  its  imputed 
guilt  and  its  punishment. 

All  the  parties,  except  the  substitute,  are  put 
into  this  satisfactory  condition  by  the  penal  suffer- 
ings of  the  substitute,  and  prior  to  the  sprinkling 
of  the  blood  upon  the  altar.  It  is  sun  clear  that 
the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  substitute  can 
contribute  nothing  to  justice,  which,  according  to 
the  theory,  has  received  all  its  demands;  nor  to 
God,  who  is  already  propitiated,  and  who  can  not 
be  more  than  propitiated;  nor  to  the  worshiper, 
who  is  already  pardoned  and  saved,  and  who  can 
not  be  more  than  saved. 

Just  at  this  point,  substitutionists  are  hopelessly 
confused.  They  can  never  give  any  satisfactory 
account  of  this  sprinkling  of  the  blood  upon  the 
altar;  or  any  account  at  all  that  is  in  harmony  with 
their  fundamental  postulate,  no  pardon  without 
prior  punishment. 

Perhaps  the  shrewdest  thing  they  can  do  is  to  say 
something  about  ' '  penal  sacrifices. ' ' 

But  even  if  such  nondescript  things  were  possible 
(and  we  know  they  are  not)  they  bring  no  relief; 
for  the  atoning,  or  saving  power,  according  to  the 
theory,  is  exclusively  in  the  suffering  of  the  substi- 
tute, and  not  in  the  blood  at  all. 

We  have  seen  that  substitution  is  a  very  agreeable 
thing  to  all  concerned,  except  the  substituted  vic- 
tim. This  it  puts  symbolically  into  eternal  spirit- 
ual death,  with  no  provision  for  its  release. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  237 

(3)  Now  drop  the  type,  and  turn  your  attention 
for  a  moment  to  the  antitype. 

The  theory  imputes  to  the  sinless  Christ  the 
guilt  of  all  for  whom  he  died,  and  requires  him  to 
endure  all  the  punishment  due  to  this  measureless 
guilt,  but  provides  no  rational  method  of  escape 
from  that  state  of  guilt  and  spiritual  death. 

I  say  no  rational  mode  of  escape.  It  is  true  the 
theory  assumes  that  he  freed  himself  from  this  ter- 
rible state  by  penal  suffering,  just  as  a  criminal 
sent  up  for  ten  years  frees  himself  from  punishment 
by  remaining  within  prison  walls  till  the  time  ex- 
pires. 

In  this,  however,  substitutionists  deceive  them- 
selves by  assuming  an  analogy  between  human  and 
divine  law,  which  does  not  exist. 

The  penalties  of  human  law  may  be  limited  by 
time,  but  the  penalties  of  divine  law  are  never  thus 
limited.  Their  duration  is  always  determined  by 
the  duration  of  the  rebellious  state.  To  disobey  is 
to  be  put  under  penalty,  or  to  be  deprived  of  the 
good  that  CQ.mes  from  obedience.  To  return  to  obe- 
dience is  to  be  freed  from  the  penalty  that  comes 
from  disobedience. 

But  let  me  emphasize  this  immutable  truth :  , 

The  penalty  can  never  remove  the  disobedience 
or  gtiilt  of  which  it  is  the  consequence. 

It  has  absolutely  no  power  over  its  source.  The 
effect  can  not  remove,  or  in  any  way  modify,  its 
cause.  Christ's  imputed  guilt  (which,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  according  to  the  theory,  not  ideal,  but  real) 
and  his  sufferings  were  related  as  cause  and  effect. 


238  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

How,  then,  was  it  possible  for  his  penal  suffering 
to  remove  his  guilt  and  release  him  from  the  pangs 
of  spiritual  death? 

Note. — If  penal  sufferings  can  offset  guilt  and  re- 
store the  criminal  to  favor,  then  of  necessity  the 
penal  sufferings  of  Satan  and  all  other  lost  spirits 
must  offset  their  guilt  and  restore  them  to  favor. 

They  fully  pay  as  they  go — always  sinning,  but 
always  cancelling  their  guilt  by  their  penal  and  ex- 
piatory sufferings.  Their  debits  and  credits  always 
form  an  exact  equation;  otherwise,  justice  would 
be  hopelessly  defrauded  of  its  dues.  For  the  sin- 
ner's capacity  to  suffer  never  exceeds  the  measure 
of  his  obligation  to  obedience,  in  default  of  which 
he  suffers.  Supererogatory  obedience  and  supere- 
rogatory suffering  are  equally  impossible.  Hence, 
if  the  sinner's  suffering  to-day  falls  short  of  satis- 
fying justice,  he  can  never  make  up  the  deficit. 
The  conclusion  seems  fair  that  if  Satan's  penal  suf- 
ferings can  not  free  him  from  guilt,  so  as  to  bring 
him  out  of  condemnation,  neither  can  Christ's 
penal  substitutionary  sufferings  release  him  from 
substitutionary  condemnation.  There  is,  I  think, 
no  escape  from  this  conclusion.  Hence,  it  follows 
that  if  Christ  was  put  into  a  state  of  guilt  and  penal 
suffering  by  becoming  a  substitute  for  sinful  men, 
then  he  is  either  there  yet,  or  Satan  and  all  other 
sinners,  for  whom  Christ  is  not  a  substitute,  have 
their  guilt  removed  by  their  individual  sufferings. 

SECTION  IV. — Penal  righteousness. 

Another  offensive  feature  of  this  method  of  re- 
moving guilt  is  that  it  requires  us  to  believe  that 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  239 

men  are  saved  by  a  penal  righteousness,  if  we  can 
conceive  of  such  a  monstrosity. 

If  Christ  satisfies  justice  or  law  by  enduring  the 
penalty  of  law,  then,  of  course,  the  righteousness 
of  this  act  is  nothing  more  than  a  penal  righteous- 
ness. 

Note. — Such  righteousness  has  the  criminal,  who 
has  served  his  term  of  punishment  in  the  State 
prison;  or,  such  righteousness  has  Satan,  and  all 
other  sinners,  who  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law  on 
their  own  account. 

Of  course,  if  Christ  satisfied  the  law  by  enduring 
its  penalty,  this  act  secures  to  him  only  penal  right- 
eousness. Now,  if  this  penal  righteousnesss  is 
imputed  or  imparted  to  us,  and  we  are  saved  by  it, 
then  we  are  saved  by  penal  righteousness. 

(But  if  penal  righteousness  can  save,  when  the 
penalty  is  endured  by  a  substitute,  of  course  it 
must  save  when  the  penalty  is  endured  by  the  prin- 
cipal, as  Satan  and  all  others  whose  penalties  have 
not  been  endured  by  a  substitute. ) 

According  to  the  theory  justice  must  have '  its 
demands,  but  seems  to  be  as  fully  satisfied  with  pe- 
nal as  it  is  with  preceptive  righteousness  and  by  its 
consequences  blots  out  the  distinction  between  the 
righteousness  of  the  redeemed  and  that  of  the  un- 
redeemed. 

Of  course  even  the  most  rigid  penalists  do  not 
admit  these  gross  absurdities;  nor  do  I  charge  them 
with  believing  them.  But  the  question  is,  Do  they 
not  inhere  in  their  doctrine  of  substitution?  If 
they  do  not,  then  all  reasoning,  it  seems  to  me,  is 


240  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

an  illusion,  and  theories  should  not  be  made  an- 
swerable for  their  consequences. 

SECTION  V. — Manual  imposition. 

The  imposition  of  hands  is,  I  think,  egregiously 
misinterpreted  in  the  penalises  account  of  these 
tabernacle  atonements. 

The  theory,  in  the  hands  of  one  of  its  most  as- 
tute and  zealous  defenders,  says  (Hodge,  Vol.  II.,  p. 

5°3): 

' '  The  hands  of  the  offender  were  to  be  laid  on 
the  head  of  the  victim  to  express  the  ideas  of  sub- 
stitution, and  of  the  transfer  of  guilt.  The  sin 
of  the  offerer  was  laid  upon  the  head  of  the  vic- 
tim." 

The  penal  theory  imperatively  requires  this  or 
an  equivalent  explanation  of  the  imposition  of 
hands  in  relation  to  these  tabernacle  atonements. 
It  harmonizes  admirably  with  the  explanations  giv- 
en of  other  parts  of  these  tabernacle  services.  But 
the  calamity  is  these  explanations,  as  we  have  just 
seen,  involve  consequences  too  extravagant  to  be 
true.  This  fact  throws  grave  suspicion  upon  this 
explanation  of  manual  imposition  in  these  atone- 
ments. 

The  theory  assumes  that  the  moral  qualities  of 
individuals  may  be  interchanged,  and  asserts  that 
the  imposition  of  hands  expresses  the  transfer  of 
guilt  from  one  party  to  the  other.  No  proof  is  at- 
tempted. The  fact  that  the  explanation  harmo- 
nizes with  the  scheme  of  substitution  is  deemed 
proof  sufficient — that  is,  one  assumption  is  harmo- 
nized with  another.  That  the  explanation  is 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  241 

not  true  will  sufficiently  appear  from  the  following 
facts. 

1.  I  have  previously  shown  that  a  transfer   of 
guilt  from  one  party  to  another  by  substitution  is  a 
psychological    impossibility.      Whatever   else   an- 
other may  do  for  me,  he  can  never  take  my  con- 
science or  mental  states  and  make  them  his  own 
and  give  me  his  conscience  and  mental  states  in  re- 
turn.    As  easily  could'  he  impart  to  me  his  own 
personality  and  take  mine.      ' '  The  soul  that  sin- 
neth  it  shall  die."     "Whatsoever  a  man  soweth, 
that  shall  he  also  reap." 

2.  If  manual  imposition  in  this  case  expresses 
"  the  ideas  of  substitution  and  of  transfer  of  guilt," 
then  the  same  rite  is  used  to  express  two  irrecon- 
cilable things,  which  is  simply  incredible. 

The  same  word  may  be  taken  in  different  senses, 
but  that  the  same  religious  rite  should  be  used  in 
the  Bible  to  express  two  incompatible  things  would 
make  the  Bible  a  riddle  rather  than  a  revelation. 
What  other  religious  rite  sanctioned  by  Bible  usage 
can  be  taken  to  express  contradictory  things  ? 

The  generic  import  of  the  rite  as  used  in  the 
Old  and  in  the  New  Testament  is  benediction.  Ja- 
cob long  before  the  tabernacle  ritual  existed  used  it 
for  this  purpose,  and  I  hesitate  not  to  say  that  there 
is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  it  was  ever  used 
for  any  other  and  contrary- purpose. 

The  imposition  of  hands  is  a  prayer  in  gesture, 
or  the  accompaniment  of  prayer  for  a  blessing,  and 
is  in  fact  generally  attended  with  audible  prayer  or 
benediction. 
16 


242  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

Imposition  of  hands  and  lifting  up  of  hands  in 
prayer  seem  to  be  substantially  the  same  thing,  or 
are  expressive  of  the  same  mental  states.  The  dif- 
ference is  formal  rather  than  real.  When  the  wor- 
shiper prays  with  uplifted  hands,  his  hands  are 
ideally  imposed  upon  the  object  for  which  he  prays. 
When  hands  are  literally  imposed,  heart  and  hands 
have  the  same  object,  whether  words  are  uttered  or 
not. 

Mere  digital  contact,  unaccompanied  with  prayer 
in  word  or  thought  receives  nothing,  imparts  noth- 
ing, does  nothing.  If  a  shock  divine  is  given  or 
received,  it  comes  through  the  prayer,  and  not 
through  manipulation.  Never  is  it  used  for  pur- 
poses of  imprecation,  or  the  transfer  of  evil  from 
the  bad  to  the  good,  but  always  for  purposes  of 
good  to  somebody. 

Look  into  your  Bibles  and  you  will  readily  see 
that  in  every  instance  of  its  use  benediction  is  its 
object. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  what  authority  have  we 
from  the  Bible  to  believe  that  the  Jew  when  he 
brought  his  kid  before  the  altar,  and  piously  put  his 
hands  upon  its  innocent  head  did,  by  that  act,  impre- 
cate the  wrath  of  God  upon  it,  transferring  to  it  in 
thought  or  intention,  as  his  substitute,  his  guilt? 
I  answer,  none  whatever. 

The  fact  that  this  sacrificial  victim  was  required 
to  be  perfect,  without  any  manner  of  defect,  pro- 
tests against  the  idea  that  it  must  become  the  object 
of  penal  wrath. 

Again,  the  penal  explanation  of  this  sacrificial 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  243 

rite  implies  malevolence  in  God  as  his  motive  for 
punishment.  We  are  told  (see  Num.  xv.)  that 
these  sacrifices  were  "  a  sweet  savor  unto  the  Lord." 

If  the  suffering  of  the  innocent  victim  represent- 
ed the  suffering  of  lost  souls,  how  could  they  be  "  a 
sweet  savor  unto  the  Lord,"  who  "doth  not  af- 
flict willingly,"  and  who  hath  "no  pleasure  in  the 
death  of  the  wicked." 

I  do  not  know  that  Satan  rejoices  in  the  suffer- 
ings of  his  victims. .  The  wolf  is  selfish  rather  than 
malicious.  So  the  seducer.  The  pleasure  does  not 
come  from  the  infliction  of  pain  upon  others,  but 
from  the  gratification  of  selfish  desires. 

The  bare  suggestion  that  penal  suffering  is  as 
' '  a  sweet  savor  unto  the  Lord, ' '  is  repugnant  alike 
to  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  and  to  the  instincts 
of  humanity.  It  seems  to  me  nothing  less  than  an 
impeachment  of  the  divine  goodness. 

On  the  contrary,  it  is  in  perfect  harmony  with 
the  divine  goodness  to  suppose  these  sacrifices  to 
be  a  sweet  savor  to  the  Lord,  not  because  they  in- 
volved suffering,  but  because  they  were  the  appoint- 
ed expressions  of  the  spirit  of  loving  obedience  to 
God,  just  as  any  other  act  of  religious  worship  put 
forth  according  to  divine  command.  It  is  the  obe- 
dience, and  not  the  penal  suffering  consequent  upon 
the  disobedience,  that  is  "a  sweet  savor  unto  the 
Lord." 

This  view  enables  us  to  see  why  the  sacrificial 
kid  should  be  faultless,  without  spot  or  blemish,  as 
all  acts  of  worship  should  be  pure  in  intention,  and 
well  pleasing  to  God  as  such. 


244  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

Remember,  too,  that  these  faultless  victims  were 
the  divinely-appointed  types  of  the  sinless  Christ, 
"  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world." 

No  Jew,  I  feel  safe  in  saying,  when  he  brought 
his  victim  to  the  altar,  and  put  his  hands  upon  its 
head  ever  intended  thereby  "to  express  the  ideas 
.of  substitution,  and  of  transfer  of  guilt;"  or  that 
his  sin  was  transferred  to  the  victim  to  be  punished 
' '  in  his  stead. ' '  He  rather  intended  his  surrender  of 
the  victim  to  the  priest  as  an  act  of  obedience — an 
act  of  religious  worship — and  the  laying  of  his 
hands  upon  its  head  was  a  ritual  prayer  that  the 
sacrifice  might  be  acceptable  and  propitiatory. 
This  will  be  subsequently  more  fully  explained. 

Note. — Dr.  Hodge  represents  that  the  Jews  held 
the  penal  theory  of  atonement.  He  says  (Vol.  II., 
p.  500) : 

"Outram  quotes  from  Jewish  authorities  forms 
of  confession  connected  with  the  imposition  of 
hands  on  the  victim.  One  is  to  the  following  effect: 
'  I  beseech  thee,  O  Lord,  I  have  sinned,  I  have  done 
perversely,  I  have  rebelled,  I  have  done  (specifying 
the  offense);  but  now  I  repent,  let  this  victim  be 
my  expiation.'  The  design  of  the  imposition  of 
hands  was  to  signify,  say  these  authorities,  the  re- 
moval of  sin  from  the  offender  to  the  animal." 

Certainly  the  Jew  did  believe  that  his  sacrifices 
did  in  some  way  expiate  or  atone  for  his  sins.  If 
he  did  not  believe  this,  why  should  he  offer  them? 

But  to  believe  this  was  not  necessarily  to  believe, 
that  his  guilt  and  punishment  were  literally  trans- 
ferred to  the  kid. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  245 

If  he  did  not  look  beyond  the  type  to  the  anti- 
type, his  common  sense  would  not  permit  him  to 
believe  that  the  momentary  sufferings  of  the  dying 
kid  were  ' '  an  exact  equivalent ' '  of  the  endless  suf- 
fering of  the  lost  soul.  His  common  sense,  more- 
over, could  not  fail  to  teach  him  that  there  is  no 
equivalency  between  mere  animal  suffering  and 
spiritual  suffering — between  animal  death  and  spir- 
itual death. 

The  Jew  could  not  believe  that  the  kid  atoned 
for  his  sins  by  suffering  as  his  substitute  the  equiv- 
alent of  an  endless  spiritual  death.  Such  a  belief 
is  impossible  to 'a  sane  mind.  The  Jew,  therefore, 
expected  his  kid  to  remove  his  guilt  in  some  other 
way  than  by  ' '  equivalent  penalty. ' ' 

But,  if  he  looked  beyond  the  type  to  the  anti- 
type, as  his  religion  required  him  to  do,  then  he 
could  not  believe  that  the  kid  typically  atoned  in 
one  way,  and  that  Christ  really  atoned  in  a  radically 
different  way;  for  this  would  destroy  all  typal  re- 
lation, or  make  the  type  and  antitype  contradictory 
one  of  the  other. 

Further,  the  quotation  from  Outram  furnishes 
not  a  particle  of  proof  that  the  Jews  believed  the 
penal  theory  of  atonement,  but  actually  proves  the 
contrary. 

The  only  word  in  the  quotation  that  can  be  made 
to  favor  the  theory  is  the  word  expiation,  and  this 
can  be  done  only  by  a  perversion  of  the  word  from 
its  etymological  and  original  meaning. 

No  old  Latin  writer,  I  think,  ever  used  the  word 
expiatio  to  signify  pardon  by  substitution,  with 


246  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

double  imputation.  (The  word  is  elsewhere  suffi- 
ciently noticed.) 

As  we  have  seen,  the  word  expiation  does  not 
occur  in  King  James'  Bible  at  all.  Nor  is  there  in 
the  Bible  a  solitary  instance  of  atonement  with 
double  imputation.  Mark  this  fact. 

You  will  also  observe  that  Outram  does  not  say 
' '  let  this  victim  be  my ' '  substitute,  but  my  ' '  ex- 
piation." The  Jew  by  such  a  prayer  evidently 
meant,  let  this  be  my  propitiation.  This  puts  the 
prayer  in  harmony  with  the  Bible,  which  uses  the 
word  atonement,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  sense  of 
propitiation. 

I  wish  you  now  to  note  the  fact  that  all  the  other 
significant  words  of  this  quotation  by  their  general 
import  exclude  the  idea  of  pardon  by  penalty.  ' '  I 
beseech  ...  I  have  sinned  .  .  .  have  done  per- 
versely .  .  .  have  rebelled.  .  .  .  Now  I  repent, 
.  .  .  let  this  victim  be  my  expiation" — my  atone- 
ment. 

The  offering  of  the  victim  is  accompanied  with 
confession,  prayer,  repentance,  and  the  Bible  teaches 
us  that  these  are  the  indispensable  conditions  of  par- 
don. But  confession,  prayer,  and  repentance  ac- 
cording to  the  penal  theory  are  quite  out  of  place 
and  worthless.  If  pardon  is  conditioned  upon  pun- 
ishment, then,  as  we  have  seen,  confession,  supplica- 
tion, and  repentance  are  useless  appendages  to  the 
plan  of  salvation. 

Pardon  being  the  exact  legal  equivalent  of  pun- 
ishment, of  course  justice  can  demand  nothing 
more  without  becoming  itself  unjust.  Such  is  the 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  247 

theory.  But  the  Jew,  according  to  Outram,  deemed 
confession,  prayer,  and  repentance  necessary  to  par- 
don. The  Jew,  therefore,  was  not  a  substitutionist, 
Dr.  Hodge's  allegation  to  the  contrary,  notwith- 
standing. 

Dr.  Hodge  is  not  less  distinguished  for  his  polem- 
ic skill  than  for  his  learning.  We  have  a  right, 
therefore,  to  infer  that  this  quotation  is  the  strong- 
est proof  that  he  has  been  able  to  find  in  all  Jewish 
literature  in  support  of  his  position.  This,  as  we 
have  seen,  is  positively  against  the  theory. 


248  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER  X. 

SECTION  I. — The  scape-goat  considered. 

Lev.  xvi.  21,  22  is  often  appealed  to  by  penalists 
in  proof  of  their  explanation  of  manual  imposition. 
This  discussion  would  consequently  be  radically  de- 
fective if  I  should  give  no  attention  to  this  text. 

"Aaron  shall  lay  both  his  hands  upon  the  head 
of  the  live  goat  and  confess  over  him  all  the  iniqui- 
ties of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  all  their  transgres- 
sions in  all  their  sins,  putting  them  upon  the  head 
of.  the  goat  and  shall  send  him  away  by  the  hand 
of  a  fit  man  into  the  wilderness.  And  the  goat 
shall  bear  upon  him  all  their  iniquities  into  a  land 
not  inhabited  [separation]  and  he  shall  let  go  the 
goat  in  the  wilderness."  (Afidbar,  desert,  pasture 
land.) 

Dr.  Hodge,  whose  eagle  eye  seizes  every  thing 
that  seems  to  favor  his  cause,  claims  this  text  as 
absolute  confirmation  of  his  theory  of  substitution, 
and  of  imposition  of  hands. 

He  says  (Vol.  II. ,  p.  504) : 

"  This  renders  it  plain  that  the  design  of  the  im- 
position of  hands  was  to  signify  the  transfer  of  the 
guilt  of  the  offender  to  the  victim.  .  .  .  To  bear 
sin  is  to  bear  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  sin." 

All  the  commentaries  consulted  by  me  agree  sub- 
stantially with  Dr.  Hodge. 

It  may  seem  presumption  or  even  madness  in  me 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  249 

to  set  myself  against  such  high  authority.  Be  it 
so.  But  fidelity  to  my  convictions  of  truth  and 
duty  compel  me  to  dissent,  and  when  I  have  given 
my  reasons  for  this  dissent,  you  must  decide  for 
yourselves.  Note  the  following  facts. 

i.  This  ceremony  was  a  part  of  the  ritual  service 
of  the  great  day  of  atonement — the  great  annual 
atonement,  when  propitiation  was  made  for  the 
whole  nation.  The  salient  points  only  will  be  no- 
ticed. 

(i)  Two  kids  of  the  people  were  selected.  They 
did  not  represent  sacrificially  one  person  more  than 
another.  (Partial  atonement  was  born  later.)  Lots 
were  cast  to  determine  which  should  be  the  sacri- 
ficial and  which  the  scape-goat  (azazel). 

The  goat  on  which  the  lot  fell  for  the  Lord — that 
is,  the  sacrificial  goat,  was  killed  in  due  form  and 
its  blood  sprinkled  upon  the  mercy-seat  in  the  holy 
of  holies,  which  at  the  time  must  be  filled  with  the 
odor  of  burning  incense,  which  was  the  divinely- 
appointed  symbol  of  prayer,  without  which  the  at- 
tempt to  sprinkle  the  blood  upon  the  mercy-seat 
would  have  cost  the  high-priest  his  life.  Thus  an 
atonement  was  made  for  all  the  people.  According 
to  the  popular  theory  it  was  the  sufferings  of  this 
sacrificial  kid  that  made  atonement  for  the  whole 
nation — it  was  punished  as  their  substitute  and 
they  were  pardoned.  The  priestly  functions,  after 
the  act  of  killing  the  goat,  such  as  the  sprinkling 
of  its  blood  upon  the  mercy-seat,  and  the  burning 
of  intense  in  the  most  holy  place,  were  mere  unes- 
sential appendages;  for,  if  the  theory  is  true,  the 


250  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

atonement  was  completely  made  and  the  sins  of  the 
people  fully  expiated  when  the  kid  experienced  its 
last  death  pang.  You  can  not  fail  to  see  the  dis- 
crepancy between  the  theory  and  the  Bible  account 
of  the  facts. 

(2)  The  sacrificial  kid  having  been  thus  disposed 
of,  and  propitiation  made  for  the  whole  nation,  Aa- 
ron then  laid  both  his  hands  upon  the  head  of  the 
scape-goat  which  Dr.  Hodge  and  others  say  "was  to 
signify  the  transfer  of  the  guilt  of  the  offender  to 
the  victim." 

Now,  you  will  observe  that  the  same  sins  are 
twice  transferred  from  the  people  to  the  goats,  first 
to  the  sacrificial  goat,  and  then  to  the  scape-goat, 
and  each  transaction  is  expressly  called  an  atone- 
ment. But  we  are  told  there  is  no  atonement,  no 
pardon,  without  punishment.  Hence,  the  same 
sins  are  twice  punished.  Justice  has  twice  received 
plenary  satisfaction  for  the  same  sins.  Thus  the 
penal  explanation  flatly  contradicts  itself.  Or,  to 
avoid  this  contradiction,  will  it  be  said  that  the 
punishment  was  divided  between  the  goats?  But 
how  can  you  divide  the  guilt  or  the  punishment, 
since  we  are  expressly  told  that  all  the  sins  of  the 
people  shall  be  borne  by  azazel ;  and  of  course  by 
the  sacrificial  goat  also  ? 

Dr.  Hodge  sees  this  difficulty,  but  as  usual,  with 
one  bold  dash  of  his  facile  pen,  brushes  it  out  of 
his  way.  He  says  (p.  504) : 

"  The  two  (kids)  constitututed  one  sacrifice,  as  it 
was  impossible  that  one  could  signify  all  that  was 
intended  to  be  taught." 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  251 

If  the  two  kids  constituted  one  sacrifice,  why 
were  the  same  sins  transferred  to  both  kids?  or 
twice  punished  ?  But,  as  we  shall  see,  there  was  in 
fact  but  one  kid  sacrificed. 

Dr.  Hodge,  or  rather  the  penal  theory,  utterly 
fails  to  give  any  intelligible  and  self-consistent  ac- 
count of  this  double  sacrifice,  as  it  is  improperly 
considered. 

2.  Other  inseparable  difficulties  inhere  in  this 
explanation. 

(1)  Imputed  guilt  and  punishment,  according  to 
the  doctrine,  are  inseparable,  one  always  involving 
the  other.     But  the  scape-goat  was  not  punished  by 
death,   or  in   any   other  manner.     Therefore,    the 
scape-goat  was  not  in  any  sense  guilty.    But  priestly 
hands  were  laid  upon  it.     Therefore,  manual  impo- 
sition does  not  express  the  transfer  of  guilt  from  the 
worshiper  to  the  victim. 

There  is,  I  think,  no  possible  escape  from  this 
argument.  As  the  point  is  a  vital  one,  you  will 
allow  me  to  re-state  it  in  a  briefer  form.  Thus,  all 
guilt  involves  punishment.  The  scape-goat  was  not 
punished.  Therefore,  it  was  not  guilty  in  any 
sense.  But  priestly  hands  were  imposed  upon  it. 
Therefore,  imposition  of  hands  does  not  express  a 
transfer  of  guilt.  Or,  the  simple  fact  that  the 
scape-goat  was  not  killed  disproves  the  penal  the- 
ory of  manual  imposition. 

(2)  The  theory  asserts  that  atonement  always  in- 
cludes both  propitiation  and  reconciliation.     Hence, 
it  can  never  give  any  intelligible  account  of  these 


252  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

two  atonements,  made  one  by  the  sacrificial  and  the 
other  by  the  scape-goat. 

(3)  Nor  can  it  ever  reconcile  the  atonement  made 
with  the  scape-goat,  with  the  statement  (Lev.  xvii. 
ii ;  Heb.  ix.  22)  that  the  atonement  is  in  the  blood, 
and  "that  without  the  shedding  of  blood  there  can 
be  no  remission." 

(4)  The  theory  says,  "To  bear  sin. is  to  bear  the 
guilt  and  punishment  of  sin."     But  the  scape-goat 
did  bear  all  the  sins  of  the  Jewish  nation.     But 
it  did  not  bear  either  the  guilt  or  punishment  of 
these  sins.     Therefore,  to  bear  sins  is  not  necessa- 
rily to  bear  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  sin,  as  we 
shall  more  fully  see.     Here,  again,  the  theory  flatly 
contradicts  the  plainest  Bible  facts,  which  assures 
us  that  the  scape-goat  was  not  killed — was  not  pun- 
ished— its  blood  was  not  shed,    nor  have  we  any 
authority  for  believing  it  was  in  any  way  injured  or 
dishonored.     Yet  it  did  bear  the  sins  of  the  whole 
nation. 

It  is,  hence,  as  clear  as  language  can  put  it,  that 
the  scape-goat  did  actually  bear  a  nation's  sins  in 
some  sense,  and  equally  clear  that  it  was  not  killed 
nor  punished  in  any  sense. 

It  is  equally  clear  that  the  nation's  sins  were  in 
some  sense  taken  away  or  pardoned,  and  equally 
clear  tjiat  they  were  not  punished  in  any  sense  or 
any  form. 

These  incontestable  Bible  facts  disprove  the  fun- 
damental dicta  upon  which  the  whole  penal  theory 
reposes — that  is,  they  prove  that  sin  may  be  par- 
doned, taken  away,  or  destroyed  without  being 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  253 

punished;  also  prove  that  a  priest  may   bear  sin 
without  bearing  its  guilt  or  punishment. 

These  facts,  so  destructive  to  the  substitutionary 
scheme,  will  be  much  strengthened  and  actually 
exemplified  by  additional  facts  in  the  course  of  the 
discussion. 

SECTION  II. — An  adverse  view  of  the  offices  of 
the  sacrificial  and  the  scape-goat. 

The  Bible  clearly  teaches,  and  it  is  generally  ad- 
mitted, that  two  things  are  indispensable  to  salva- 
tion, viz. :  first,  atonement  in  the  sense  of  propitia- 
tion; and  secondly,  atonement  in  the  sense  of  rec- 
onciliation. The  first  pertains  exclusively  to  God ; 
the  second  to  men.  God  is  never  reconciled,  but  is 
propitiated.  Men  are  never  propitiated,  but  are 
reconciled.  Such  is  the  uniform  usage  of  these 
terms  in  the  New  Testament. 

(I  have  previously  noted  the  confusion  in  which 
the  penal  theory  is  involved  in  the  use  of  these 
terms,  sometimes  confounding  them,  and  sometimes 
discriminating  them.) 

These  atonements  are  intimately  related,  but  not 
related  as  cause  and  effect,  but  as  condition  and 
event;  or,  reconciliation  is  conditioned  upon  pro- 
pitiation. Hence,  there  may  be  propitiation  with- 
out reconciliation,  but  no  reconciliation  without 
prior  propitiation.  Atonement  by  the  scape-goat 
was  conditioned  upon  atonement  by  the  sacrificial 
goat.  The  latter  propitiates;  the  former  reconciles. 
In  like  manner,  Christ,  as  a  sacrificial  offering,  or 
by  the  shedding  of  his  blood,  or  the  surrender  of 


254  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

his  life,  was  made  a  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the 
world  (Rom.  iii.  25;  i  John  iv.  10). 

Christ  in  the  garden  and  on  the  cross  is  the  atoner 
in  the  sense  of  propitiator  as  typified  by  the  sacri- 
ficial goat,  on  the  great  day  of  atonement.  But 
this  propitiation  of  itself  takes  away  no  sin.  The 
sacrificial  goat  did  not  bear  or  take  away  sin. 
Hence,  no  sin  was  imputed  to  it  or  put  upon  it  by 
the  imposition  of  hands.  This  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  all  the  sins  of  the  nation  were  put  upon 
the  scape-goat,  and  by  it  borne,  or  carried  away, 
and  of  course  the  same  sins  could  not  be  twice  taken 
away. 

Mark  this;  fact,  that  it  was  not  the  sacrificial 
goat,  but'  the  scape-goat  that  bore,  or  carried  aivay 
sin.  The  sacrificial  goat  propitiates,  and  thereby 
renders  reconciliation,  or  the  taking  away  of  sin 
possible,  but  of  itself  takes  away  no  sin — has  no 
effect  upon  the  legal  or  moral  states  of  the  people. 

In  exact  analogy  with  this  Christ,  by  the  sacri- 
fice of  himself,  made  propitiation  for  the  sins  of 
the  world.  But  this  sacrifice  of  itself  takes  away 
no  sin — in  no  sense  changes  man's  moral  or  legal 
condition.  Man  is  as  truly  morally  corrupt  and  le- 
gally condemned  as  he  would  be  without  this 
propitiatory  sacrifice.  What  this  sacrifice  does  for 
men  is  this :  It  renders  their  reconciliation — a 
change  of  their  moral  and  legal  states — possible,  not 
inevitable,  as  substitutionists  wrongfully  assert. 
As  it  was  not  the  dead  but  the  living  kid  that  bore, 
or  took  away  the  sins  of  the  nation,  so  it  is  not  the 
dead  or  the  unrisen  Christ  that  becomes  the  sin- 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  255 

bearer,  or  sin-destroyer,  but  the  resurrection,  or 
living  Christ  that  bears  sin,  takes  away  sin,  destroys 
sin,  blots  out  sin,  etc. 

This  doctrine  pervades  the  New  Testament  from 
beginning  to  end.  It  is  the  living  Christ,  not  the 
dead,  that  justifies,  that  saves.  Hundreds  of  texts 
might  be  cited  proving  this  fact.  It  is  sufficient  to 
refer  to  the  following:  Rom.  iii.  25;  iv.  25;  2  Cor. 
v.  17,18;  Isa.  xliii.  25;  Gal.  vi.  14. 

On  the  contrary,  there  are  no  texts  that  refer  our 
salvation  directly  to  what  Christ,  as  a  sacrifice  for 
sin,  did  or  suffered.  What  he  did  and  suffered  is 
referred  to  only  as  the  essential  conditions  by  which 
he  became  what  he  really  is — a  living,  personal 
Savior,  who  justifies  and  saves  by  imparting  his 
own  nature  to  those  united  to  him  by  faith. 

Every  reasonable  view  of  the  subject  seems  to 
require  us  to  attribute  salvation  to  the  agency  of  a 
living,  personal  Christ,  and  not  to  something  that 
he  has  done  or  suffered  in  the  remote  past. 

If,  when  he  offered  himself  as  a  sacrifice,  he  took 
away  the  sins  of  the  world,  then,  of  course,  he  does 
not  now  take  away  those  sins.  If  he,  as  a  present 
living  agent  now  takes  away  my  sins,  then  he  did 
not  in  the  remote  past  take  away  my  sins.  Substi- 
tution requires  us  to  believe  that  he  took  away  and 
expiated  sin  when  he  gave  himself  a  sacrifice  for 
sin.  This,  as  we  have  seen,  seems  to  supersede 
the  necessity  of  his  resurrection,  and  of  any  living 
personal  Christ.  It  also  requires  us  to  believe  the 
absurd  proposition  that  he  took  away  sins  before 
they  were  committed,  or  even  before  those  that 


256  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

commit  them  had  any  existence.  The  utmost  that 
he  could  do  in  this  regard  would  be  to  take  away,  not 
non-existent  sin,  but  the  possibility  of  sin.  But 
this,  we  know  by  painful  experience,  he  did  not  do. 

The  facts  force  us  to  the  conclusion,  not  that 
Christ  actually  put  away  sin,  destroyed  sin,  blotted 
out  sin,  when  he  made  himself  a  sacrifice  for  sin, 
but  the  object  of  his  mission  into  the  world  was 
to  put  away,  condemn  sin,  destroy  sin,  save  from 
sin,  and  that  for  this  mission,  he  was  prepared  by 
the  sacrifice  of  himself  (Heb.  ix.  26). 

He  is  the  Lamb  of  God,  not  which  took,  or  hath 
taken  away  the  sin  of  the  world  eighteen  centuries 
ago;  or,  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  but 
which  now  beareth  away  or  taketh  away  the  sin  of 
the  world  (John  i.  29;  Matt.  viii.  17). 

This  distinction  between  the  office  of  the  sacrificial 
goat  and  that  of  the  scape-goat — or  between  the  of- 
fice of  Christ  as  propitiator  and  that  of  reconciler 
is  clearly  indicated  by  Paul  (Rom.  iv.  25)  when  he 
says  Christ  "was  delivered  for  our  offenses,  and 
was  raised  again  for  our  justification." 

Christ,  we  are  here  taught,  was  delivered  up  to 
death  on  account  of  our  offenses,  but  this  offering 
up  did  not  justify,  or  save  us.  Hence,  to  do  this  he 
must  rise  from  the  dead. 

Now,  mark  the  important  fact  that  it  was  not  his 
death,  nor  merely  the  act  of  rising  from  the  dead 
that  justifies  or  saves  us;  but  the  object  of  his  res- 
urrection in  relation  to  men  was  to  justify  and  save 
them  from  their  sins,  not  before,  but  after  they  are 
committed,  and  when  they  are  repented  of. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  257 

If  we  were  justified  by  the  act  of  his  resurrection, 
then  we  would  be  saved  from  actual  sins  before  we 
have  committed  them,  which  is  absurd. 

I  repeat,  it  was  not  the  sacrificial,  but  the  scape- 
goat that  bore  the  sins  of  the  people. 

It  was  not  the  dead  Christ  that  took  away  sins, 
but  the  resurrection,  living  Christ  that  bears  them 
away  into  oblivion. 

Both  goats,  it  is  conceded,  typify  Christ.  But  it 
is  one  of  the  fatal  blunders  of  the  penal  theory  that 
it  makes  both  represent  the  same  official  relation, 
confounds  propitiation  and  reconciliation,  or  makes 
them  inseparable,  and  involves  itself  in  inexplicable 
confusion,  as  we  have  seen. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts,  we  are  able  to  see  the 
relation  between  the  atonement  made  with  the 
sacrificial  and  that  made  with  the  scape-goat;  just 
the  relation  between  propitiation  and  reconciliation 
— the  first  the  completed  work  of  the  self-sacrificing 
Christ,  the  second  the  uncompleted,  but  continuous 
work  of  the  risen  living  Christ 
«7 


258  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

SECTION  I. — Bible  terms  and  phrases  which  are 
assumed  to  teach  the  penality  of  Chrisf1  s  death. 
The  relation  of  Chrisf  s  suffering  to  his  propitia- 
tion. 

The  Bible  sometimes  refers  Christ's  propitiatory 
work  to  his  sufferings,  and  sometimes  to  his  death. 
When  the  word  suffering  is  used,  it  should,  I  think, 
be  always  understood  in  a  metonymical  sense;  or, 
as  the  cause  put  for  the  effect,  and  is  equivalent  to 
death,  which  is  the  natural  effect  of  suffering. 
Human  beings  can  bear  only  a  limited  amount  of 
suffering,  and  when  the  maximum  of  this  capacity 
is  transcended,  death  is  the  natural  result.  When 
the  Bible,  therefore,  speaks  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  as  the  ground  of  his  propitiation,  his  actual 
death  is  intended. 

This  fact,  rightly  apprehended,  throws  much 
light  upon  the  much-mooted  question  as  to  the 
amount  of  suffering  Christ  actually  endured  for 
men. 

What  the  great  moral  law,  under  which  Christ 
was  born,  required  him  to  do,  was  to  give  himself 
— his  life — a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  world;  or, 
to  be  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the 
cross.  This  was  the  highest  and  most  perfect  obedi- 
ence possible.  Besides  life,  he  had  nothing  to  give. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  259 

Had  his  capacity  for  suffering  been  a  thousand 
times  greater  than  it  actually  was,  the  endurance 
of  all  this  suffering,  apart  from  his  death,  would 
have  constituted  no  propitiation,  because  it  would 
not  have  met  the  full  requirements  of  the  law — 
would  not  have  been  obedience  unto  death,  or  all 
that  he  could  give. 

On  the  contrary,  any  amount  which  was  purely 
consequent  upon  obedience  unto  death,  was  suffi- 
cient, because  it  was  all  that  was  possible. 

I  will  further  say  that  had  it  been  possible  for 
Christ  to  experience  a  sacrificial  death  without  suf- 
fering at  all,  either  bodily  or  mentally,  the  propitia- 
tory sacrifice  would  have  been  accepted,  because  it 
would  have  been  obedience  unto  death. 

This,  however,  was  of  course,  impossible;  and  I 
make  the  statement  only  to  emphasize  the  important 
fact  that  obedience — perfect  obedience  unto  death — 
was  what  the  law  required,  and  not  suffering  or 
pain  as  such,  and  apart  from  the  death  to  which  it 
was  accessory.  The  sacrifice  and  the  consequent 
propitiation  consisted  in  the  obedience  unto  death, 
and  not  in  the  amount  of  suffering  involved. 

It  was  the  death — the  surrender  of  the  victim's 
blood,  or  life — that  the  ritual  required,  and  not 
any  definite  amount  of  pain  as  such.  The  obedi- 
ence of  Christ  unto  death  was  what  the  law  of  love 
required,  and  not  any  amount  of  suffering  exactly 
equated  to  the  sufferings  involved  in  spiritual  and 
eternal  death. 

If  this  view  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  is  even 
substantially  true,  then  we  can  see  that  salvation  is 


260  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

truly  by  grace,  and  not  by  penal  fire,  or  its  equiv- 
alent as  the  penal  theory  requires  us  to  believe. 

We  can  also  see  how  Christ  could  become  a  pro- 
pitiation for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  without 
enduring  suffering  equal  in  degree,  if  not  also  in 
kind,  to  the  endless  death  of  all  mankind. 

It  relieves  us  from  the  necessity  of  believing  that 
the  blessings  that  come  from  benefaction  can  never 
exceed  the  evils  endured  by  the  benefactor;  or  that 
good  and  evil,  blessing  and  cursing,  form  an  exact 
equation — no  pardon  without  prior  and  equivalent 
punishment! 

The  above  statements  will  enable  us  the  more 
correctly  to  understand  some  forms  of  expressions 
used  in  reference  to  Christ's  sacrifice  of  himself  for 
the  sins  of  humanity. 

SECTION  II. — Bible  texts  examined. 

We  have  both  in  the  Old  and  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment various  forms  of  expression,  which  are  as- 
sumed to  prove  that  Christ  actually  bore  the  guilt 
and  punishment  due  to  the  sins  of  thos£  for  whom 
he  died. 

i.  From  the  Old  Testament  we  have  the  follow- 
ing (Isa.  liii.): 

"He  hath  borne  our  griefs  and  carried  our  sor- 
rows— was  wounded  for  our  transgressions — bruised 
for  our  iniquities — the  chastisement  of  our  peace 
was  upon  him;  and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed. 
The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all — 
for  the  transgression  of  my  people  was  he  stricken. 
It  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him — he  hath  put  him 
to  grief;  when  thou  shalt  make  his  soul  an  offering 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  261 

for  sin  he  shall  see  his  seed — shall  see  the  travail  of 
his  soul  and  shall  be  satisfied.  By  his  knowledge 
shall  my  righteous  servant  justify  many;  for  he 
shall  bear  their  iniquities — he  hath  poured  out  his 
soul  unto  death — he  was  numbered  with  the  trans- 
gressors and  he  bare  the  sin  of  many  and  made  in- 
tercession for  the  transgressors.*' 

2.  The  New  Testament  furnishes  the  following 
corresponding  texts : 

"Who  his  own  self  bare  our  sins  in  his  own 
body  on  the  tree."  (i  Peter  ii.  24.) 

' '  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the 
law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us,  for  it  is  written, 
Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree. ' '  (Gal. 
iii.  13.) 

These  are  the  principal  and  the  strongest  texts 
relied  upon  to  prove  that  "To  bear  sin  is  to  bear 
the  guilt  and  punishment  of  sin." 

Remarks. — However  strong  these  citations  from 
Isaiah  liii.  may  appear,  the  entire  contents  of  the 
chapter  can  never  be  .harmonized  with  the  penal 
theory.  We  consequently  are  under  the  necessity 
of  making  the  prophet  contradict  either  himself  or 
the  penal  theory. 

This  might  be  shown  from  a  comparison  of  many 
expressions  in  the  chapter;  but  it  is  sufficient  to  di- 
rect attention  to  the  following: 

(1)  "When  thou  shalt  make  his  soul  [life]  an  of- 
fering for  sin."     His  death  was  sacrificial  and  there- 
fore not  penal,  for,  as  we  have  seen,  a  penal  sacri- 
fice is  a  contradiction  in  the  adjective. 

(2)  "  He  shall  see  his  seed  " — see  those  to  whom 


262  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

his  own  nature  is  imparted,  or  who  are  born  of 
God.  If  he  died  a  penal  death,  then  he  imparts 
penal  righteousness  to  men,  and  saints  and  Satan 
are  clothed  in  the  same  garments,  as  we  have  pre- 
viously seen. 

(3)  "Shall  see  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  shall 
be  satisfied."     How  can  the  fruits  of  penalty  be  a 
source  of  satisfaction  to  the  penalty  bearer  ?     Pen- 
alty, as  we  have  seen,  can  not  satisfy  God,  for  he  is 
angry  with  the  wicked  (the  only  penalty  bearers) 
every  day;  nor  satisfy  justice,  which  is  defrauded  by 
all  penalty  bearers  of  its  claims  to  their  loving  obe- 
dience;   least  of  all,   how  can  penalty  satisfy  the 
penalty  bearer,  for,  having  no  power  to  remove  its 
cause,  it  is  neither  a  satisfaction  in  itself  nor  the 
means  of  subsequent  satisfaction. 

On  the  contrary,  if  Christ's  travail  was  such  as 
comes  from  loving  fidelity,  then  we  can  very  readily 
see  how  he  can  be  satisfied  with  the  fruits  of  that 
travail.  It  is  like  the  satisfaction  that  comes  to  the 
generous  benefactor,  or  to  the  self-sacrificing  moth- 
er, who  contemplates  with  ineffable  pleasure  the 
restoration  of  a  sick  child  which  her  travail  of  soul 
has  instrumentally  saved  from  death. 

(4)  "  By  his  knowledge  shall  my  righteous  serv- 
ant justify  many."     If  this  text  read:   By  his  pe- 
nal sufferings  my  unrighteous  enemy  shall  justify 
many,  then  it  would  be  in  harmony  with    penal 
substitution.     But  reading  as  it  does,  all  the  exe- 
getes  and  casuists  in  Christendom  can  not  harmo- 
nize it  with  the  penal  scheme.     This  nothing  but 
the  most  defiant  dogmatism  can  do. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  263 

The  terms  knozvledge,  righteous,  servant,  and 
justify,  each,  of  itself  excludes  penality. 

If  Christ  justifies  men  by  substitutionary  suffer- 
ing, then  he  does  not  justify  them  by  his  knowl- 
edge. If  he  is  a  penal  substitute  for  sinners,  then 
he  is  confessedly  guilty  or  unrighteous',  and  if  he  is 
guilty,  then  he  is  not  a  servant  in  the  sense  in 
which  Christ  is  recognized  as  such;  and  if  he  is  not 
preceptively  righteous,  then  he  can  not  be  righteous 
or  justify  others,  except  with  the  penal  righteous- 
ness, with  which  Satan  himself  is  justified. 

We  may  not  know  precisely  how  Christ  by  his 
knowledge  justifies  many,  but  we  know  the  fact. 
We  know  the  fact  that  the  physician  by  his  knowl- 
edge restores  the  patient;  that  the  wise  man  may 
impart  his  wisdom  to  others  without  being  able 
fully  to  comprehend  the  processes.  So  of  Christ's 
knowledge  in  justifying  many.  We  know  that  he 
' '  learned  obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suffered, 
[thus]  being  made  perfect  he  became  the  author  of 
eternal  salvation  unto  all  them  that  obey  him." 
(Heb.  v.  8,  9.) 

By  the  knowledge  thus  "learned"  he  is  able  to 
justify  or  make  righteous  those  that  obey  him  by 
making  them  partakers  of  his  own  righteousness, 
etc.  (Heb.  x.  12;  2  Peter  i.  4.) 

(5)  ' '  Therefore  will  I  divide  him  a  portion  with 
the  great,  and  he  shall  divide  the  spoil  with  the 
strong."  For  his  services  God  "hath  highly  ex- 
alted him  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above 
every  name."  (Phil.  ii.  9-11.) 

How  could  God  so  honor  one  for  the  righteous- 


264  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

ness  that  consists  in  bearing  a  penalty  ?  The  idea 
seems  preposterous  in  the  extreme. 

(6)  "And  made  intercession  for  transgressors." 
This  finds  one  striking  verification  in  the  prayer  on 
the  cross :  "  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not 
what  they  do."  (Luke  xxiii.  34.) 

I  have  had  frequent  occasion  to  say  that  if  the 
penal  theory  is  true — if  pardon  is  based  upon  pun- 
ishment and  comes  necessarily  out  of  it,  as  all  con- 
sistent penalists  hold,  then  prayer,  intercession,  and 
every  other  means  are  worthless.  If  God  has  made 
punishment  the  condition  of  pardon,  then  to  inter- 
cede or  pray  for  pardon  is  a  reflection  upon  the  di- 
vine integrity. 

Yet  Christ  prayed  for  his  persecutors.  If  that 
has  any  pertinency  or  significance  in  it,  and  we 
know  it  has,  then  it  proves  beyond  all  reasonable 
question  that  his  sufferings  did  not  offset  the  guilt 
and  infallibly  insure  the  salvation  of  all  for  whom 
he  died,  as  substitutionists  teach. 

These  quotations,  taken  from  the  fifty-third  chap- 
ter of  Isaiah  can  not  be  harmonized  with  the  doc- 
trine of  substitution.  They,  by  their  logical  conse- 
quences, contradict  it.  Hence,  it  follows,  if  that 
doctrine  is  true,  the  prophet  contradicts  himself. 
Or,  if  he  does  not  contradict  himself,  he  squarely 
contradicts  that  doctrine,  and  penalists  egregiously 
misinterpret  the  prophet.  His  language  can  not 
mean  what  they  assume  it  to  mean.  Let  us  see 
what  the  facts  require  us  to  believe. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  265 

SECTION  III. — To  bear  sin  explained. 

I  suppose  that  it  will  be  readily  conceded  that 
these  texts  all  teach  by  varied  forms  of  expression 
the  same  doctrine;  also  conceded  that  if  one  teach- 
es the  penal  theory,  then  they  all  teach  it,  and  that 
if  all  do  not  teach  it,  then  no  one  teaches  it. 

It  would  be  a  more  tedious  than  difficult  task,  I 
think,  to  take  these  texts,  one  by  one,  and  show 
that  none  of  them  give  any  support  to  the  penal 
scheme. 

If  the  penal  theory  was  an  established  fact,  it 
would  be  possible,  I  suppose,  to  harmonize  the 
most  of  them  with  that  theory,  but  not  possible  to 
harmonize  them  with  those  conflicting  texts  of  the 
same  chapter  above  noticed. 

But  the  question  is  not  whether  they  can  be  har- 
monized with  it,  but  whether  they  are  intended  to 
teach  it  and  consequently  can  be  harmonized  with 
no  other  view. 

Let  us  take  the  words  "he  bare  the  sin  of  many." 
I  fix  on  this  expression  because  Dr.  Hodge  cites  it 
as  affording  strong  and  unquestionable  proof  of  pe- 
nality.  Dr.  Hodge  boldly  asserts  without  qualifica- 
tion or  any  sort  of  limitation,  that  "  To  bear  sin  is 
to  bear  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  sin."  From 
this  I  dissent,  and  affirm  that  the  Hebrew  word 
nasa,  here  rendered  "bare,"  is  used  in  many  differ- 
ent senses  in  the  Bible.  Among  other  things,  it 
sometimes  means  to  suffer,  or  endure  punishment 
on  account  of  sin.  This  is  the  sense  attached  to  it 
by  Dr.  Hodge  and  penalists  generally. 

But  the  word  is  often  used  in  the  sense  of  to  re- 


266  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

move,  to  take  away  or  destroy  sin  without  suffering 
the  penalty  of  it.  I  also  affirm  that  the  word  al- 
ways has  this  latter  meaning,  when  it  is  used  of  the 
priesthood,  when  priests  are  said  to  bear  the  sins  of 
the  people,  etc.  It  also  sometimes  means  to  suffer 
on  account  of  others. 

Fix  this  statement  distinctly  in  your  minds.  It 
is  a  vital  issue.  If  I  fail  to  establish  its  truth,  then 
I  fail  to  disprove  the  penal  theory.  But,  if  this 
statement  can  be  proved,  then  the  penal  theory  re- 
ceives a  crushing  blow. 

i.  Dr.  Hodge  makes  these  words,  "  He  bare  the 
sin  of  many,"  thje  key  to  his  explanation  of  the 
scape-goat  atonement,  and  holds  that  the  scape- 
goat was  somehow  punished  representatively  in  the 
death  of  the  sacrificial  kid,  both  goats  constituting 
one  sacrifice. 

It  certainly  is  more  logical  and  safer  to  interpret 
Isaiah  by  the  light  of  the  scape-goat  atonement, 
for  the  prophet  certainly  knew  in  what  sense  the 
scape-goat  bears  sin,  and  would  naturally  use  the 
same  expression  in  the  same  sense  when  speaking 
of  Christ. 

We  have  previously  seen  that  the  scape-goat  did 
bear  symbolically  the  sin  of  all  the  people;  but  it 
was  not  guilty,  nor  punished.  Isaiah,  knowing 
that  the  scape-goat  was  not  killed,  nor  otherwise 
punished,  and  knowing  it  to  be  a  type  of  Christ, 
could  not  set  the  type  and  antitype  in  array  against 
each  other. 

Knowing  that  the  goat  bore  the  sins  of  the  peo- 
ple, but  was  neither  guilty  nor  punished,  he  could 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  267 

not  mean  to  say  that  Christ,  when  he  bears  sin,  is 
both  guilty  and  punished. 

Hence,  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  Moses, 
in  the  Ritual,  uses  the  words,  * '  bear  sin, ' '  in  the 
sense  of  taking  away  sin  without  punishment,  and 
that  Isaiah  should  use  the  same  formula  in  the  sense 
of  bearing  the  punishment  of  sin.  If  the  same 
word,  when  used  of  the  type,  means  one  thing; 
and  when  applied  to  the  antitype  means  a  wholly 
different  thing,  then  the  Bible  is  an  incomprehensi- 
ble riddle. 

2.  I  have  said  the  Hebrew  word  nasa  is  translated 
bear  in  the  sense  of  to  be  afflicted  or  suffer  on  ac- 
count of  the  sins  of  others,  but  not  substitutionally. 
A  remarkable  instance  of  this  kind  is  recorded  of 
the  prophet  Ezekiel  (Ezek.  iv.  4-6). 

According  to  this  account,  this  good  man  and 
prophet  of  God  did  in  some  sense  bear  the  iniquities 
of  his  nation  for  many  years.  Not  because  he, 
himself,  had  egregiously  sinned,  but  because  his 
nation  had  so  sinned,  this  good  man  was  made  to 
endure  in  common  with  others  the  evils  that  God 
judicially  visited  upon  the  rebellious  people. 

You  will  observe  that  there  was  no  imputation  of 
the  nation's  sins  to  the  prophet.  He  was  not  in 
any  sense  their  substitute.  His  sufferings  on  their 
account  did  not  relieve  them  in  any  sense,  for  they 
bore  their  own  sins  and  were  ' '  consumed  away  for 
their  (own)  iniquity"  (v.  17). 

In  what  sense,  then,  did  this  good  man  bear  the 
iniquities  of  others  ?  Manifestly  thus :  He  was 
afflicted,  troubled,  grieved  by  the  wickedness  of 


268  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

his  people,  and  made  to  suffer  the  temporal  evils 
or  calamities  common  to  his  people,  just  as  good 
men  generally  are  made  to  suffer  in  mind  and  in 
temporal  affairs  by  the  iniquities  of  their  families, 
communities,  and  nations. 

It  h  also  observable  that  when  national  calamities 
come  upon  a  people,  because  of  their  iniquities,  or 
for  any  cause,  the  righteous  suffer  temporal  evils 
with  the  wicked,  as  did  Ezekiel. 

But  why  did  EzekiePs  sufferings  not  turn  away 
God's  displeasure,  and  bring  pardon  to  his  people  ? 
The  same  word,  nasa,  is  here  used  that  is  used  by 
Isaiah.  The  obvious  reason  is  that  he  bore  their 
iniquities,  as  any  good  man  bears  the  iniquities  of 
others,  and  not  as  an  accredited  priest.  Note  this 
fact:  His  sufferings,  possibly,  were  as  great  as 
were  those  of  Moses  at  Sinai,  when  he  made  atone- 
ment for  his  people  in  the  affair  of  the  golden  calf. 
But  he  was  not  like  Moses,  a  priest  or  mediator  be- 
tween God  and  his  people. 

We  see  in  this  case  how  a  good  man,  even  a 
prophet,  may  bear  the  iniquities  of  others  without 
being  their  substitute,  or  releasing  them  from  their 
criminality  and  punishment. 

It  is  proper  also  to  observe  that  Ezekiel  suffered 
evils  visited  upon  his  people  by  special  providence 
alone.  He  did  not  bear  the  natuial  retributions  of 
their  sins.  He  did  not  take  their  mental  states  and 
transmit  his  mental  states  to  them. 

This  case  is  of  special  value,  because  it  teaches 
us  in  a  practical  way  the  peculiar  and  wonderful 
power  of  the  priesthood.  Ezekiel  was  not  a  priest, 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  269 

and  therefore  could  not  bear  the  sins  of  others, 
either  in  the  sense  of  taking  them  away  or  by  re- 
moving them  by  suffering  the  punishment  due  to 
them,  or  in  any  other  way. 

Dr.  Hodge  refers  to  Ezekiel's  case  as  an  exem- 
plification of  his  dictum  : 

"To  bear  sin  is  to  bear  the  guilt  and  punishment 
of  sin.  He  says,  Tke  expression  ('bearing  sin') 
occurs  some  forty  times  in  the  Bible,  and  always  in 
the  sense  of  bearing  the  guilt  or  punishment  of 
sin  "  (p.  506). 

According  to  this  bold  statement,  Ezekiel,  the 
scape-goat,  and  Christ  all  bore  the  sins  of  others 
exactly  in  the  same  sense — that  is,  all  bore  the 
guilt  and  punishments  of  others'  sins.  You  will 
remember  that  Ezekiel  bore  the  sins  of  the  house 
of  Israel,  and  yet  the  people  were  consumed  by 
their  own  iniquity.  Hence,  according  to  Dr. 
Hodge,  the  same  sins  were  twice  punished;  first,  in 
Ezekiel,  the  substitute;  and  secondly,  in  the  people 
themselves.  This  fact  of  itself  refutes  his  rash 
statement.  That  his  assumption  is  not  true  will  be 
made  sufficiently  plain  by  other  facts. 

3.  The  vital  question  in  hand  is,  In  what  sense 
does  the  accredited  priest  bear  the  sins  of  others  ? 
We  know  the  sense  in  which  the  unrepentant  and 
unpardoned  sinner  bears  his  sins;  also,  know  in 
what  sense  Ezekiel  and  other  good  men  bore  the 
iniquities  of  their  people.  But  we  are  now  con- 
cerned to  know  the  precise  sense  in  which  the 
divinely-appointed  priests  did  bear  the  sins  of 
others. 


270  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

The  settlement  of  this  vital  question  will  neces- 
sarily settle  every  important  issue  between  substitu- 
tionary  and  non-substitutionary  theories  of  atone- 
ment; for  Ezekiel,  the  scape-goat,  and  Christ  did 
all  in  some  sense  bear  the  sins  of  others.  Hence,  if 
to  bear  sin  is  used  ' '  always  in  the  sense  of  bearing 
the  guilt  or  punishment  of  sin,"  then,  of  course, 
Ezekiel,  the  scape-goat,  and  Christ  bore  the  guilt 
and  punishment  of  others'  sins;  and  the  substitu- 
tionary  theory  is  unquestionably  established. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  271 


CHAPTER  XII. 

SECTION  I. — The  qtiestion  tested  by  the  Bible 
facts. 

1.  We  have  just  seen  that  Ezekiel  bore  the  iniq- 
uities of  his  people;  yet  his  people  bore  the  same 
iniquities.      This   fact   flatly   contradicts   substitu- 
tion. 

2.  We  have  previously  seen  that  the  scape-goat 
bore  all  the  sins  of  all  the  people,  and  yet  was  not 
killed,  or  punished  in  any  way.     This  fact  contra- 
dicts the  dictum,  that,  "  To  bear  sin  is  to  bear  the 
guilt  and  punishment  of  sin." 

3.  In  Exodus  (x.  16,  17)  we  have  the  word  nasa 
translated  '  ''forgive. ' '     Pharaoh  said  to  Moses : 

"I  have  sinned  against  the  Lord  your  God,  and 
against  you.  Now,  therefore,  forgive,  I  pray  thee, 
my  sin  only  this  once,  and  entreat  the  Lord  your 
God  that  he  may  take  away  from  me  this  death 
only." 

Moses  entreated  the  Lord,  and  the  locusts  were 
taken  away  and  cast  into  the  sea. 

Here  we  have  sin  bearing  in  the  exact  sense  of 
sin  forgiven,  sin  taken  away,  sin  blotted  out,  sin 
destroyed,  but  not  punished  in  principal  or  any  sub- 
stitute. 

Let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  we  have  the  same 
word  here  that  Moses  uses  when  he  prays,  "  if  thou 


272  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

wilt  forgive  their  sin,  if  not,  blot  me,  I  pray  thee, 
out  of  thy  book."  Also  the  same  word  used  of  the 
scape-goat,  when  it  bears  or  takes  away  sin;  also 
the  same  word  used  by  Isaiah  when  he  says  of 
Christ  that  "he  bear  the  sin  of  many,"  also  when 
he  says,  ' '  he  hath  borne  our  griefs. ' ' 

Now,  it  certainly  displays  more  courage  than  dis- 
cretion to  say  that,  "  To  bear  sin  (in  all  these  cases, 
or  even  in  any  of  them)  is  to  bear  the  guilt  or  pun- 
ishment of  sin. ' '  Sin  was  actually  borne,  or  taken 
away  in  all  these  cases,  yet  there  was  absolutely  no 
punishment  in  any  of  them,  unless  the  case  of 
Christ  is  an  exception,  which  is  contrary  to  every 
probability. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  Isaiah,  when  he  says  of 
Christ  (v.  n),  "he  shall  bear  their  iniquities,"  does 
not  use  the  word  nasa,  as  inverse  12,  when  he  says, 
"he  bare  the  sin  of  many,"  but  uses  the  word 
sabal,  the  ordinary  meaning  of  which  is  to  "  bear, 
or  carry  away. ' ' 

4.  It  may  be  a  matter  of  some  surprise  to  you  in 
the  face  of  the  dictum,  that  "to  bear  sin  is  always 
to  bear  its  punishment,"  to  be  told  that  the  word 
nasa  is  often  translated  forgive. 

You  can  satisfy  yourselves  by  referring  to  the  fol- 
lowing texts,  in  all  of  which  the  same  word,  nasa, 
is  rendered  forgive:  Gen.  1.  17;  Ex.  x.  17;  xxxii. 
32;  Num.  xiv.  19;  Josh.  xxiv.  19;  I  Sam.  xxv.  28; 
Psa.  xxv.  1 8;  xxxii.  5;  Ixxxv.  2;  xcix.  8;  Isa. 
ii.  9. 

In  all  these  cases  the  very  word  used  of  Christ  by 
Isaiah  liii.  4,  12,  is  used  in  the  sense  of  pardon 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  273 

without  punishment.  Dare  we  then  to  say  that 
' '  to  bear  sin  is  always  to  bear  the  guilt  or  punish- 
ment of  sin?" 

5.  Moses  is  commanded  (Ex.  xxviii.  38)  to  make 
a  plate  of  pure  gold,  and  engrave  upon  it  the  words, 
"  Holiness  to  the  Lord."  This  was  attached  to  the 
helmet,  and  worn  by  Aaron  upon  his  forehead; 
that  ' '  Aaron  may  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  holy 
things  which  the  children  of  Israel  shall  hallow  of 
all  their  holy  things,  and  it  shall  be  always  upon 
his  forehead,  that  they  may  be  accepted  before  the 
Lord." 

Remarks, — ^i)  We  are  here  taught  that  nothing 
rational  or  irrational  is  holy  or  acceptable  to  God  in 
and  of  itself,  or  without  consecration  to  him. 

(2)  That  its  iniquity  can  be  borne  or  taken  away 
only  by  priestly  power. 

(3)  The  priest,  in  removing  its  iniquity  or  un- 
cleanness  is  said  to  bear  its  iniquity. 

(4)  That  for  a  priest  to  bear  iniquity  is  not  to 
suffer   the  penalty   of  sin,   but   to  take  it  away — 
blot  it  out — destroy  it. 

(5)  That  whatever  is  sanctified  by  an  accredited 
priest,  has  its  iniquity  or  uncleanness  taken  away, 
and  is  for  this  reason  acceptable  to  God,  and  nothing 
else  is  acceptable.     [Hence,  the  necessity  for  atone- 
ment, or  consecration  for  the  holy  place,  the  altar, 
etc.  (Lev.    xvi.),  for  Jewish  worshipers  (Heb.    ix. 
13),  and  for  Christian  worshipers  (Rom.  xii.  i).] 

What  becomes  of  the  dictum  in  the  face  of  these 
sturdy  and  indubitable  Bible  facts?     It  is  simply 
crushed. 
18 


274  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

6.  It  is  well-nigh  superfluous  to  say  the  word  is 
used  often  to  express  the  simple  idea  of  removal 
without  the  remotest  reference  to  suffering  of  any 
kind. 

Moses  uses  it  to  express  the  removal  of  the  lo- 
custs by  the  wind  (Ex.  x.  19);  also  in  denying  that 
he  had  taken  from  the  Hebrews  any  thing  improp- 
erly (Num.  xvi.  15).  In  Daniel  (xi.  12),  and  in 
Amos  (iv.  2),  it  is  correctly  translated  "take  away." 

These  facts,  it  seems  to  me,  utterly  disprove  the 
assumptions  of  penalists  that  there  can  be  no  for- 
giveness without  prior  punishment,  and  that  "to 
bear  sin  is  always  to  bear  the  guilt  and  punishment 
of  sin."  They  establish,  in  opposition  to  these  as- 
sumptions, the  fundamental  truth  that  for  God's 
priests  to  bear  sin  or  make  atonement  is  to  take 
away  sin,  remove  sin,  and  make  it,  as  to  its  guilt, 
or  as  to  its  punishment,  as  if  it  had  never  been. 
Bvery  example  in  the  Bible  bearing  on  the  issue 
sustains  this  position.  Penalists  can  not  produce  a 
solitary  instance  to  the  contrary. 

Christ  was  a  priest — the  priest  of  priests — a  priest 
forever  in  his  own  right.  The  Aaronic  priests  bore 
or  took  away  sin  in  a  certain  sense;  so  the  scape- 
goat, the  type  of  the  living  Christ,  but  did  not  bear 
its  guilt  or  punishment.  The  very  same  words  used 
in  relation  to  them  are  used  in  relation  to  Christ. 
What  right  have  we  then  to  say  that  Christ  bore 
our  sins  by  taking  their  guilt  and  punishment  upon 
himself? 

Dr.  Hodge  was  not  unobservant  of  the  fact  that 
to  bear  sin  does  not  always  clearly  mean  to  bear  its 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  275 

guilt  and  punishment     He  disposes  of  the  diffi- 
culty, however,  in  his  usual  cavalier  style. 
He  says  (p.  506): 

"The  expression  occurs  some  forty  times  in  the 
Bible,  and  always  in  the  sense  of  bearing  the  guilt 
or  punishment  of  sin.  It  is  hardly  an  exception  to 
this  remark  that  there  are  a  few  cases  in  which  to 
bear  sin  means  to  pardon,  as  in  Ex.  x.  17;  xxxii. 
32;  xxxiv.  7;  Ps.  xxxii.  5;  (Ixxxv.  3;)  for  pardon 
is  not  the  removal  of  sin  morally,  but  the  lifting  up 
or  removal  of  its  guilt 

This  being  the  fact,  it  determines  the  nature  of 
the  sin-offerings  under  the  law.  The  victim  bore 
the  sins  of  the  offerer,  and  died  in  his  stead.  An 
expiation  was  thereby  effected  by  the  suffering  of  a 
vicarious  punishment  This  also  determines  the 
nature  of  the  work  of  Christ.  If  he  was  an  offer- 
ing for  sin,  if  he  saves  us  from  the  penalty  of  the 
law  of  God,  in  the  same  way  in  which  the  sin-offer- 
ing saved  the  Israelites  from  the  law  of  Moses,  then 
he  bore  the  guilt  of  our  sins  and  endured  the  penal- 
ty in  our  stead." 

Remarks. — Dr.  Hodge  here  displays  his  usual 
adroitness  in  disposing  of  a  formidable  difficulty; 
but  in  doing  so  certainly  involves  himself  in  nu- 
merous perplexities. 

i.  He  says  "bearing  sin  is  used  always  in  the 
sense  of  bearing  the  guilt  or  punishment  of  sin." 
Yet  he  says  there  are  ' '  a  few  cases  ' '  (why  did  he  not 
say  many  ?)  in  which  to  bear  sin  ' '  means  to  pardon, ' ' 
as  in  Ex.  x.  17;  but  this  "is  hardly  an  exception." 

Here  we  have  what  seems  to  be  a  palpable  con- 
tradiction. "Always"  admits  of  no  exceptions — it 
does  not  mean  in  some  instances,  but  in  every  in- 


276  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

stance.  Still  he  specifies  five  exceptions,  and  might 
have  specified  five  times  as  many. 

But  we  are  told  that  these  instances  where  to  bear 
sin  means  to  pardon  are  ' '  hardly  an  exception — ' ' 
hence,  of  no  consequence.  This  reminds  tne  that 
the  righteous  are  scarcely — "hardly" — saved,  (i 
Peter  iv.  18.)  Still  they  are  saved,  and  there  is  an 
immense  difference  between  being  scarcely  saved 
and  being  not  saved  at  all:  it  is  just  the  difference 
between  heaven  and  hell.  So  what  Dr.  Hodge  says 
"is  hardly  an  exception"  is  just  the  fundamental 
difference  between  the  penal  theory  of  the  atone- 
ment and  that  of  the  Bible.  For  the  "  few  cases" 
referred  to  by  Dr.  Hodge  and  many  others  like 
them  in  which  to  bear  sin  means  to  pardon  are 
clearly  decisive  of  the  exact  sense  in  which  God's 
priests  bear  sin.  It  was  not  convenient  for  Dr. 
Hodge  to  recognize  this  fact — it  would  be  fatal  to 
his  theory  to  do  this.  Hence,  the  summary  manner 
in  which  he  sets  these  cases  aside. 

2.  In  putting  these  "scarcely"  exceptional  cases 
out  of  his  way,  he  says,  "for  pardon  is  not  the  re- 
moval of  sin  morally,  but  the  lifting  up  or  removal 
of  its  guilt." 

As  an  isolated  proposition  this  is  true  in  relation 
to  civil  crimes,  also  in  relation  to  judicial  penalties 
in  the  sphere  of  divine  law,  but  in  relation  to  the 
ordinary  or  natural  penalties  of  sin,  it  is  not  true; 
for,  as  we  have  elsewhere  seen,  it  involves  the  ab- 
surd ideas  of  punishing  sin  before  it  exists,  of  sep- 
arating effects  from  their  causes,  and  of  saving  men 
in  their  sins  and  not  from  their  sins. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  277 

Men  may  be  pardoned  or  released  from  judicial 
punishment  through  priestly  interposition,  as  was 
often  done  among  the  Hebrews,  without  moral  ren- 
ovation, or  the  removal  of  sin  morally;  but  this  is 
deliverance  from  temporal  evils  only,  and  in  no 
sense  deliverance  from  the  natural  retributions  of 
sin.  To  pardon  sin,  in  such  a  sense  as  to  save  the 
soul,  is  not  to  release  it  from  punishment  without 
moral  renovation,  but  to  renew — regenerate,  new 
create — the  soul  itself.  This  done,  the  penalty  ceases 
as  pain  subsides  when  the  disease  which  causes  it  is 
removed.  . 

3.  Dr.  Hodge  admits  that  u  there  are  a  few  cases 
in  which  to  bear  sin  means  to  pardon ' '  without 
punishment;  but  knowing  this  admission  to  be  fatal 
to  his  theory,  says,  ' '  they  are  hardly  exceptions ' '  to 
his  dictum  that  to  bear  sin  is  always  used  ' '  in  the 
sense  of  bearing  the  guilt  or  punishment  of  sin," 
and  proceeds  in  his  argument  on  the  assumption 
that  these  few  exceptions  are  in  fact  not  exceptions 
to  his  universal  dicttim, 

The  only  reason  he  is  pleased  to  give  for  thus 
setting  aside  these  cases  is  in  the  words,  ' '  for  par- 
don is  not  the  removal  of  sin  morally,  but  the  lift- 
ing up  or  removal  of  its  guilt. ' '  This  statement, 
if  it  has  any  pertinence  at  all,  is  pertinent  only  to 
extraordinary  temporal  punishments,  and  not  the 
ordinary  and  natural  punishments  of  sin,  which  we 
have  just  seen  can  be  pardoned  or  removed  only  by 
the  removal  of  their  causes. 

If  we  are  at  liberty  to  deal  thus  with  the  Bible, 
setting  aside  what  does  not  suit  us,  then  we  are  at 


278  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

liberty  to  set  it  all  aside  and  believe  whatever  may 
happen  to  gratify  our  whims. 

You  should  not  forget  that  in  all  these  exception- 
al cases,  so  cavalierly  set  aside  by  Dr.  Hodge,  and 
in  all  cases  in  which  priests  are  said  to  bear  sin, 
there  was  absolutely  no  guilt  and  no  punishment 
endured  by  them. 

4.  Dr.  Hodge,  having  dashed  away  with  a  stroke 
of  his  pen  these  Bible  texts  which  literally  crush 
the  whole  penal  theory,  very  easily  reaches  the  con- 
clusion that  Christ  "bore  the  guilt  of  our  sins  and 
endured  the  penalty  in  our  stead." 

The  dictum  that  to  bear  sin  is  used  always  in  the 
sense  of  bearing  the  guilt  or  punishment  of  sin 
once  accepted  as  true,  then  it  follows  of  necessity 
that  those  exceptions  are  apparent  and  not  real ;  that 
Moses  was  in  some  way  punished  for  the  sin  of  Is- 
rael in  the  affair  of  the  golden  calf ;  in  the  taking 
away  of  the  locusts;  that  all  priests  in  bearing  the 
sins  of  others  were  actually  guilty  and  punished  as 
substitutes;  that  the  scape-goat  was  actually  pun- 
ished; that  Christ  was  actually  guilty  by  substitu- 
tion, and  "bore  the  guilt  of  our  sins,  and  endured 
the  penalty  in  our  stead. ' ' 

The  dictum  granted,  no  sane  man  dare  deny  the 
conclusion.  But  in  accepting  the  dictum,  we  re- 
ject by  necessary  consequence  the  teaching  of  every 
text  in  the  Bible  that  sheds  any  light  on  the  nature 
of  priestly  atonements. 

I  hope  you  will  not  condemn  this  statement  as 
rash  or  arrogant  until  you  can  produce  at  least  one 
instance  in  which  atonement  was  made  by  one 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  279 

party  taking  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  another 
party. 

But  the  dictum,  as  has  been  shown,  from  many 
considerations  is  not  true.  It  is  a  gratuitous  fig- 
ment, impossible  in  the  nature  and  order  of  things 
which  God  has  established. 

5.  Now,  it  may  be  safely  assumed  that  Isaiah,  an 
intelligent  and  pious  Jew,  understood  the  terminol- 
ogy of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures;  knew  the  exact 
sense  in  which  Pharaoh's  sin  was  taken  away, 
or  forgiven  through  the  priestly  prayer  of  Moses; 
in  what  sense  atonement  was  made  for  Israel  at 
Sinai ;  in  what  sense  Aaron  bore  or  took  away  the 
iniquities  of  the  holy  things  offered  to  the  Lord;  in 
what  sense  the  scape-goat  bore  or  carried  the  sins 
of  the  nation;  in  fine,  the  prophet  certainly  knew 
the  exact  sense  in  which  God's  priests  always  bear 
or  take  away  the  sins  of  others. 

How  then  could  he,  with  all  these  and  many 
other  accordant  facts  before  him,  with  not  a  solitary 
adverse  case  in  the  Bible,  teach,  or  mean  to  teach, 
that  Christ,  a  priest  forever  in  his  own  right,  liter- 
ally bore  or  took  away  the  sins  of  the  world  by  tak- 
ing the  guilt  and  actually  bearing  the  pains  and 
penalties  of  these  sins?  That  he  intended  so  to 
teach  simply  defies  the  possibility  of  rational  faith. 

Moses  and  Aaron  were  both  priests  and  acknowl- 
edged types  of  Christ.  They  could  bear  or  take 
away  sin  through  intercessory  prayers  by  virtue  of 
their  priestly  power.  But  the  God-Man,  a  priest 
forever,  could  take  it  away  only  by  taking  its  guilt 
and  enduring  its  penalty?  This,  the  theory  re- 


280  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

quires  us  to  believe,  but  Bible  facts  compel  me  to 
dissent. 

SECTION  II. — Fiirther  proof  that  to  bear  sin  is 
not  to  take  its  guilt. 

Additional  proof  that  Isaiah  does  not  mean  to 
teach  that  Christ,  in  bearing  sin,  actually  took  upon 
himself  the  guilt  of  the  world,  and  suffered  all  the 
punishment  this  guilt  was  capable  of  producing, 
seems  to  be  supererogatory. 

But,  as  old  and  popular  prejudices  are  hard  to 
overcome,  and  long-cherished  opinions  difficult  to 
replace  with  new  ones,  it  will  not  be  out  of  place  to 
lay  before  you  additional  proof. 

i.  The  Old  and  the  New  Testament  are  mutually 
interpretative,  one  of  the  other.  Many  things  in  the 
Old  are  made  more  easy  of  comprehension  by  the 
New,  and  many  things  in  the  New  would  be  simply 
unintelligible  without  the  Old.  In  fact,  very  much 
of  the  terminology  of  the  New  was  manifestly  sug- 
gested by  that  of  the  Old.  This  is  especially  true 
of  the  terms  relating  to  the  mediation  of  Christ, 
his  priesthood,  his  sacrificial  death,  etc. 

If  the  Old  Testament  teaches  the  doctrine  of  sub- 
stitution, we  should  reasonably  expect  the  New  to 
teach  it  with  equal  or  greater  clearness.  If  the  Old 
does  not  authorize  us  to  believe  that  for  God's  ac- 
credited priests  "  to  bear  sin  is  to  bear  the  guilt  and 
punishment  of  sin,"  then  we  have  no  right  to  be- 
lieve that  the  New  teaches  any  such  doctrine. 

We  have  just  seen  that  the  Old  does  not  teach 
it.  Now,  let  us  see  what  the  New  requires  us  to 
believe. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  281 

• 

2.  Matthew  is  presumed  to  understand  the  teach- 
ing of  Isaiah,  as  Isaiah  is  presumed  to  understand 
Moses  and  the  tabernacle  service. 

This  New  Testament  writer,  when  he  saw  Christ, 
the  great  sin  bearer,  taking  away  the  ills  of  hu- 
manity— the  sins  and  diseases  of  the  people — was 
reminded  of  what  Isaiah  had  said. 

He  says  (Matt.  viii.  14-17) : 

"And  when  Jesus  was  come  into  Peter's  house, 
he  saw  his  wife's  mother  laid  and  sick  of  a  fever, 
and  he  touched  her  hand  and  the  fever  left  her,  and 
she  arose  and  ministered  unto  them.  And  when 
evening  was  come,  they  brought  unto  him  many 
possessed  with  devils,  and  he  cast  out  the  spirits 
with  his  word,  and  healed  all  that  were  sick,  that  it 
might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  Isaiah,  the 
prophet,  saying  himself  took  our  infirmities  (asthe- 
nia], and  bore  our  diseases,  sickness  (nosos)." 

This  text  furnishes  us  with  an  infallible  clew  as 
to  how  Christ  fulfilled  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  in 
bearing  or  taking  away  human  infirmities — diseases 
and  sins.  Matthew,  with  his  own  eyes,  saw  him 
bear,  or  take  away  human  diseases  and  iniquities 
by  a  power  inherent  in  himself,  and  not  by  a  power 
which  he  had  acquired  by  satisfying  abstract  justice 
as  the  penal  substitute  of  those  whose  iniquities  he 
bore  away.  There  is  no  substitution  with  its  inva- 
riable double  imputation.  He  gave  the  sufferers 
health,  but  he  did  not  take  their  diseases.  He  re- 
lieved them  of  the  devils,  but  he  did  not  receive 
them  into  himself.  What  he  did  for  them  was  not 
by  an  interchange  of  equated  suffering,  but  by  his 


282  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

• 

word,  a  mere  expression  of  his  will,  just  as  he  qui- 
eted the  raging  winds  and  waves. 

3.  Certainly  there  was  no  substitution  here;  no 
bearing  of  penalty  for  others,  no  transfer  of  guilt 
from  one  party  to  another,  and  yet,  Matthew  being 
judge,  it  was  an  actual,  literal  fulfillment  and  ex- 
emplification of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  when  he 
says  "  he  bore  the  sin  of  many." 

Matthew  being  judge,  Christ  bears  sin,  not  by 
taking  its  guilt  or  punishment,  but  by  taking  it 
away.  Physical  evils  are  removed  by  physical 
power,  and  moral  evils  by  moral  power.  But 
Christ  has  equal  power  over  both.  But  he  takes 
away  neither  by  suffering  their  pains  and  penalties, 
but  by  a  power  inherent  in  himself. 

But  suppose  it  should  be  granted  that  he  took, 
bore  away  in  his  ante-mortem  ministry  only  phys- 
ical evils,  this  brings  no  relief  to  the  theory. 

It  is,  doubtless,  true  that  a  very  large  per  cent, 
of  the  patients  whose  maladies  Christ  took  away 
brought  these  diseases  upon  themselves  by  their 
sins. 

When  Jesus  healed  the  man  who  had  an  infirmity 
thirty  and  eight  years,  he  said,  "  Behold,  thou  art 
made  whole;  sin  no  more,  lest  a  worse  thing  come 
unto  thee." 

This  clearly  teaches  us  that  his  affliction  was  the 
natural  outgrowth  of  his  sin,  and  the  sin  and  its 
resultant  disease  were  both  taken  away  at  the  same 
time  and  by  the  same  power.  Many  other  examples 
might  be  given  from  the  New  Testament. 

The  moral  and  the  physical,  though  distinct,  are 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  283 

so  intimately  related  that  I  can  not  conceive  of  two 
wholly  different  modes  of  removal — one  by  a  ple- 
nary satisfaction  of  justice,  and  one  by  a  word,  an' 
act  of  will. 

•Now,  I  feel  quite  sure  that  even  the  most  zealous 
advocate  of  substitution  would  not  be  willing  to 
say  that  Christ,  the  great  sin  bearer,  did  actually 
take  into  his  own  body  all  the  diseases  of  which  he 
relieved  the  afflicted  that  came  to  him.  Yet  Isaiah, 
Matthew,  and  others  expressly  say  that  he  did  liter- 
ally bear  them.  Then  it  is  clear  as  noon  that  he 
did  not  bear  them  by  taking  their  punishment  upon 
himself,  but  by  destroying  them. 

Certainly  we  have  no  more  authority  from  the 
word  of  God  to  say  that  Christ  did  really  take  our 
sins  and  guilt  into  his  own  consciousness,  and  did 
accordingly  endure  the  punishment  of  them,  than 
we  have  to  say  that  he  actually  took  into  his  own 
body  the  pains  consequent  upon  physical  maladies. 

Isaiah,  Matthew,  and  others  of  equal  authority 
being  judges,  he  did  bear  them  both — the  physical 
and  the  moral — and  bear  them  both  exactly  in  the 
same  sense. 

Hence,  if  he  took  away  one  by  a  "penal  satisfac- 
tion," he  in  like  manner  took  away  the  other.  If 
he  took  away  one  by  his  word — a  simple  act  of  will, 
as  he  cast  out  devils,  calmed  the  winds  and  waves, 
raised  the  dead,  etc. — then  in  like  manner  did  he 
take  away  the  other. 

The  former  is  simply  preposterous  and  impossible. 

The  latter  is  feasible  and  possible,  and  is  without 
doubt  the  true  method. 


284  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

It  was  announced  in  Eden  that  Christ  should 
bruise  the  serpent's  head  (Gen.  iii.  15).  It  is  also 
'said,  "The  God  of  peace  shall  bruise  (or  tread) 
Satan  under  your  feet"  (Rom.  xvi.  20).  It  is  also 
said  that  Christ  was  incarnated,  "  that  through  death 
he  might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death, 
that  is,  the  devil"  (Heb.  ii.  14),  and,  "For  this 
purpose  was  the  Son  of  God  manifested,  that  he 
might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil"  (i  John 
iii.  8). 

Of  course  the  serpent,  Satan,  and  the  devil  all 
denote  the  same  power,  whose  works  Christ  came 
to  destroy.  Satan,  it  is  allowed,  instigates  all 
human  sin.  That  he  had  the  power  of  death  is 
demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  he  beguiled  Eve  into 
rebellion  and  spiritual  death. 

Then  sin  and  spiritual  death  are  the  works  of  the 
devil,  which  Christ  came  to  bear,  lake  away,  de- 
stroy. 

The  vital  question  at  issue  is,  How  does  he  de- 
stroy sin,  or  the  works  of  the  devil  ? 

i.  Does  he  do  it  as  would  a  surety  destroy  the 
indebtedness  of  his  principal,  simply  by  paying  it? 
or  as  one  man  would  relieve  another  from  legal 
punishment  by  bearing  the  punishment  himself,  if 
any  law  tolerated  such  a  thing?  Is  taking  away 
sin  by  such  methods  to  destroy  sin,  or  to  honor, 
magnify,  and  exalt  it?  If  the  physician  removes 
disease  from  his  patient  by  transferring  it  to  him- 
self and  suffering  all  its  consequences,  does  he  in 
any  proper  sense  destroy  the  disease  ?  He,  it  might 
be  said,  saves  the  patient,  but  it  can  not  be  said 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  385 

that  lie  destroys  sin,  for  sin  destroys  him;  or,  Satan 
actually  gets  all  he  desires.  If  Satan  instigates  sin 
for  his  own  gratification,  it  is  not  presumed  that  he 
is  any  more  scrupulous  as  to  who  suffers  the  conse- 
quences of  it  than  is  abstract  "justice"  which  the 
penal  theory  requires  us  to  believe  is  just  as  well 
pleased  with  suffering  in  a  substitute  as  in  a  princi- 
pal. It  is  also  presumable  that  Satan  is  just  as  well 
satisfied  with  equivalent  penalty  as  is  justice. 

Hence,  it  is  clear  as  noon  that  if  Christ  endured 
the  penalty  of  sin  in  our  stead,  then  sin  is  not  de- 
stroyed at  all,  but  transferred  from  one  party  to  an- 
other. The  creditor  does  not  lose  his  money  when 
it  is  paid  by  a  surety;  nor  Satan  his  pleasure  in  sin 
when  its  penalty  is  endured  by  a  substitute.  Satan 
and  justice,  it  seems,  are  equally  well  pleased  with 
this  method  of  destroying  the  works  of  the  devil. 

2.  Again,  the  absurdity  of  destroying  sin  by  en- 
during its  penalty,  is  further  apparent  from  this 
logical  consequence,  viz. :  If  to  endure  the  penalty 
of  sin  is  to  destroy  sin,  then,  of  necessity,  to  enjoy 
the  reward  of  virtue  is  to  destroy  virtue.  No  man 
of  any  logical  acumen  can  deny  this  conclusion. 
If  one  'proposition  is  true,  then  the  other  is  neces- 
sarily so.  For  penalty  sustains  to  sin  exactly  the 
same  relation  that  reward  does  to  virtue. 

Hence,  we  see  that  the  very  principle  by  which 
substitution  proposes  to  destroy  sin,  vice,  moral 
evil,  also  destroys  virtue,  and  moral  good;  or  the 
principle,  universally  applied,  would  destroy  all 
vice  and  all  virtue,  and  blot  both  heaven  and 
hell  out  of  existence.  Hence,  if  there  is  no  other 


286  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

method  of  destroying  sin  than  by  suffering  its  pen- 
alties, then  the  destruction  of  sin  is  simply  an  im- 
possibility. But  Christ  "was  manifested  that  he 
might  destroy  (sin)  the  works  of  the  devil,"  and 
this  we  know  he  did  not  do  by  his  passion  on  the 
cross,  or  elsewhere;  for  sin  fearfully  abounds  to- 
day, and  sinners  are  suffering  its  penalties  for  them- 
selves. 

But  Christ,  true  to  his  mission,  is  to-day  destroy- 
ing it,  delivering  men  from  its  love  and  dominion. 
This  he  does  by  a  power  in  him  as  a  living,  quick- 
ening spirit,  and  thus  brings  men  from  a  state  of 
spiritual  death  to  spiritual  life  (Eph.  ii.  1-6).  He 
destroys  it,  not  by  taking  its  penalties  on  himself, 
but  by  destroying  sin  itself,  or  by  freeing  men  from 
sin,  as  disease  is  destroyed  when  the  patient  is  freed 
from  it  (Rom.  vi.  1-7,  18;  i  Cor.  vii.  22;  John  viii. 
36,  and  parallels). 

This  view  of  the  subject  brings  us  down  from  the 
dreamy  heights  of  scholastic  conjecture  and  cl 
Priori  conclusions  into  the  sphere  of  intelligibility, 
releases  us  from  the  necessity  of  saying  that  sin 
was  destroyed  before  it  was  committed — of  saying 
that  Christ  took  the  punishment  of  the  sins  of  men 
who,  we  see,  are  suffering  the  punishment  of  their 
own  sins  every  day — a  fearful  fact  which  can  never 
be  explained  in  haifcnony  with  the  penal  theory. 
This  view  of  the  subject  puts  the  plan  of  salvation 
in  beautiful  harmony  with  universal  nature. 

As  we  look  to  God,  as  a  living  power  in  nature, 
for  food,  and  raiment,  and  shelter,  which  are  given 
to  us  largely  through  our  own  activity,  so  we  look 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  287 

to  the  same  beneficent  God  in  Christ  for  spiritual 
food  and  deliverance  from  sin. 

On  the  contrary,  if  the  penal  theory  in  its  only 
consistent  form  is  true,  then  what  should  we  do  ? 

The  only  answer  the  substitutionist  can  consist- 
ently return  to  this  question  is,  Nothing.  But  why 
this  answer?  Simply  because  if  Christ  has  borne 
the  penalty  of  our  sins  in  our  place,  then  we  can 
not  but  be  saved.  Nothing  pertaining  to  our  spir- 
itual state  and  destiny  is  conditioned.  If  we  will 
to  be  saved,  it  is  only  because  we  can  not  but  will 
it.  Our  destiny  is  in  no  sense  conditioned  upon 
what  we  do,  but  what  we  do  is  conditioned  upon 
and  determined  by  our  predetermined  destiny. 


288  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

SECTION  I. — Christians  bearing  one  another's 
burden. 

"  Bear  ye  one  another's  burdens  and  so  fulfill  the 
law  of  Christ"  (Gal.  vi.  2.) 

If  you  examine  this  text  in  the  Greek,  you  find 
the  verb  bear  to  be  the  same  used  by  Matt.  viii.  17. 
These  burdens  which  we  are  here  commanded  to 
bear  are  such  as  are  common  to  Christians,  through 
temptation,  mental  infirmities,  poverty,  persecu- 
tions, and  faults,  or  sins.  (See  context. ) 

Now,  in  what  sense  can  Christians  bear  these 
burdens  for  one  another?  You  can  not  take  my 
temptations,  my  infirmities  and  faults,  and  make 
them  your  own — my  remorse  of  conscience  or  what- 
ever pains  or  penalties  may  come  on  me  from  them. 
You  can  not  by  possibility  take  my  place  in  law 
and  as  my  substitute  bear  my  burdens  while  I  am 
set  free  and  released  from  them.  Nor  can  the  Al- 
mighty himself  do  this  without  changing  personali- 
ties. The  utmost  you  can  do  is  to  give  me  your 
moral  support,  your  sympathy,  your  love,  your  coun- 
sel, and  your  prayers. 

One  friend  might  sacrifice  ease  and  comfort,  and 
even  die  of  sympathetic  love  for  another,  but  can 
not  take  his  place  or  suffer  in  his  stead.  To  bear 
one  another's  burdens,  then,  is  not  to  bear  them 


XGN-PEXAL  THEORY.  289 

substitutionally,  or  one  in  the  place  of  another,  but 
in  the  interest  of  another. 

Now  I  wish  you  to  make  special  note  of  the  fact, 
that  by  bearing  one  another's  burdens  in  this,  the 
only  possible  method,  we,  Paul  being  judge,  do 
fulfill  the  law  of  Christ.  "Bear  ye  one  another's 
burdens,  and  so  (in  this  way)  fulfill  the  law  of 
Christ."  Now,  what  is  this  law  of  Christ  which 
Christians  are  required  to  fulfill  ? 

I  can  conceive  of  no  law  of  Christ  that  Christians 
can  fulfill,  except  his  example  of  self-sacrificing 
love. 

He  says:  "This  is  my  commandment,  that  ye 
love  another  as  I  have  loved  you."  (John  xv.  12.) 
And  Paul  says:  "Husbands,  love  your  wives  as 
Christ  also  loved  the  church  and  gave  himself  for 
it."  (Eph.  v.  25.) 

Observe  that  the  comparison  in  these  texts  is  one 
of  kind,  and  not  of  degree.  Now,  husbands  may 
suffer  deeply  through  love,  in  the  interest  of  their 
wives;  but  never  can  suffer  in  the  room  or  place  of 
their  wives. 

» 

These  texts  certainly  destroy  the  supposed  penal 
significance  of  the  word  bear. 

SECTION  II. — Another  text  relied  upon  by  pe- 
nalists. 

i  Peter  ii.  24  is  considered,  perhaps,  the  most  fa- 
vorable to  substitution  of  any  text  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. It,  therefore,  requires  attention.  It  reads 
thus: 

"Who  his  own  self  bare  ouj  sins  in  his  body 


290  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

t 

upon  the  tree,  that  we,  having  died  unto  sin,  might 
live  unto  righteousness;  by  whose  stripes  ye  were 
healed." 

Remarks. — i.  If  we  may  interpret  this  text  in 
the  light  of  those  previously  considered,  then  we 
know  that  Christ  did  not  bear  our  sins  as  our  sub- 
stitute, or  by  enduring  the  penalty  of  them  in  our 
stead.  For  the  Bible  must  be  allowed  to  be  con- 
sistent with  itself,  and  of  course  does  not  teach  con- 
tradictory doctrines  concerning  the  manner  in  which 
Christ  bears  sin. 

But  suppose  we  are  not  at  liberty  thus  to  explain 
scripture  by  scripture,  and  are  required  to  test  every 
text  bearing  on  the  subject  by  the  force  of  its  own 
terminology — in  the  light  of  its  own  context;  still, 
I  am  quite  sure  that  this  text,  under  these  restric- 
tions even,  can  never  be  made  by  any  fair  exposi- 
tion to  sustain  the  penal  theory. 

2.  Let  us  first  consider  it  in  the  light  of  its  con- 
text. No  text  having  a  logical  connection  with  its 
context,  can  be  safely  interpreted  except  in  accord- 
ance with  that  context;  otherwise  we  may  stultify 
the  author. 

The  text  itself  is  an  illustration,  and  an  enforce- 
ment of  the  duty  of  patience,  which  is  urged  by 
Peter  upon  Christian  bond-servants.  In  verse  18, 
Peter  says:  "Servants  be  subject  to  your  masters 
with  all  fear,  not  only  to  the  good  and  gentle,  but 
also  to  the  froward." 

Here  the  duty  of  reverent  and  patient  subjection 
is  distinctly  enjoined.  The  following  verses  give 
the  reasons  for  this  patience: 


NON- PENAL  THEORY.  291 

4 '  For  this  is  thank-worthy,  if  a  man,  for  con- 
science toward  God,  endure  grief,  suffering  wrong- 
fully. For  what  glory  is  it,  if,  when  ye  be  buffetted 
for  your  faults,  ye  take  it  patiently?  but  if  when  ye 
do  well,  and  suffer  for  it,  ye  take  it  patiently,  this  is 
acceptable  with  God." 

Peter  here  antithesizes  deserved  and  undeserved 
punishment,  and  teaches  with  utmost  distinct- 
ness: 

1.  That  there  is  no  merit — nothing  praise- wor- 
thy, nothing  acceptable  to  God — in  suffering  for  ill- 
doing,  or  in  enduring  penalty. 

2.  But  that  to  suffer  for  well-doing  is  meritorious 
or  acceptable  with  God. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  to  suffer  for 
wrong-doing  is  to  suffer  penalty,  and  to  suffer  for 
right-doing  is  not  to  suffer  penalty,  but  for  right- 
eousness' sake;  and  that  these  two  kinds  of  suffer- 
ing are  in  their  mental  aspects  as  diverse  as  it  is 
possible  for*the  human  mind  to  experience. 

Let  this  vital  truth  be  emphasized,  viz.  :  that 
penal  suffering,  Peter  being  judge,  is  void  of  all 
merit,  is  not  acceptable  with  God,  and  is  in  no  sense 
the  ground  of  his  complacent  love  or  favor. 

On  the  contrary,  the  divine  blessing  is  unspar- 
ingly pronounced  upon  those  that  suffer  for  well- 
doing— that  is,  suffering  which  is  involved  in  well- 
doing. (Matt.  v.  n,  12.) 

It  deserves  to  be  indellibly  impressed  upon  your 
minds,  that  the  Bible  from  beginning  to  end,  and 
in  various  forms,  identifies  as  to  kind  the  mental 
sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  mental  suffering  of 


292  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

his  followers.     They  differ  in  degree  and  merit,  but 
not  in  kind. 

But  no  good  man  ever  suffered  penally  or  vicari- 
ously for  another.  These  well-attested  facts  can 
not  be  reconciled  with  the  substitutionary  scheme 
of  atonement.  Let  me  repeat  them  briefly : 

1.  There   is,    Peter  being  judge,   absolutely  no 
merit   in   penal   suffering;    but  suffering  for  well- 
doing  is   meritorious   or   acceptable   to   God.      If 
these  statements  are  true  in  reference  to  the  prin- 
cipals, they  must  be  so  of  their  substitutes,  if  they 
have  any. 

But  there  was  merit  in  the  suffering  of  Christ,  or 
rather  in  the  sufferer.  His  death  was  to  God  as  a 
sweet-smelling  savor.  Therefore,  his  sufferings  were 
neither  substitutionary  nor  penal. 

2.  The  mental  suffering  of  Christ  and  of  his  foU 
lowers  are  identical  in  kind.     But  no  man  ever  suf- 
fered substitutionally  for  another.     Therefore,  Christ 
never  so  suffered  for  sinners. 

In  verse  21,  Peter  informs  those  servants  that 
they  were  called  to  suffer  for  Christ's  sake,  "be- 
cause Christ  also  suffered  for  you,  leaving  you  an 
example  that  ye  should  follow  his  steps." 

Here  we  are  taught  that  Christ  suffered  for  us, 
and  that  we  must  suffer  for  his  sake.  If  he  suffered 
substitutionally  for  us,  then  we  are  taught  that  our 
sufferings  for  his  sake  are  also  substitutionary;  oth- 
erwise, we  do  not  follow  his  steps  as  we  are  required 
to  do.  To  follow  his  steps  in  suffering  is  to  suffer 
in  kind  with  him,  but  if  his  sufferings  were  vica- 
rious, then  for  us  to  follow  in  his  steps  in  this  re- 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  293 

spect  is  simply  impossible,  for  no  man  ever  did  or 
can  thus  suffer. 

But  if  Christ's  suffering  for  us  was  such  as  comes 
from  love  and  not  from  penalty,  and  our  suffering 
for  him  such,  and  only  such,  as  comes  from  love  to 
him,  then  we  can  see  clearly  enough  how  we  in  this 
respect  may  follow  in  his  footsteps  as  we  are  required 
to  do. 

Again,  the  sufferings  which  Christ  endured  for 
us  were  purely  voluntary,  as  previously  stated. 
But  no  voluntary  suffering  is  penal,  for  the  bare 
idea  of  voluntariness  excludes  the  possibility  of 
penalty. 

Whatever  suffering  one  man  may  voluntarily 
undergo  in  the  interest  of  another,  is  not  penalty 
but  pure  benefaction.  If  one  man  should,  at  his 
own  request,  be  hung  in  the  place  of  another,  it 
would  not  be  penalty,  but  pure  benefaction.  No 
voluntary  suffering  is  penal.  Christ's  suffering  was 
voluntary,  hence,  not  penal. 

Such  are  the  teachings  of  the  context  with  some 
of  its  logical  correlates.  Let  us  now  consider  the 
text  itself,  and  see  what  it  requires  us  to  believe. 

i.  The  terms  of  the  text,  as  well  as  does  the  con- 
text, excludes  the  idea  of  substitution. 

The  word  which  chiefly  determines  the  nature  of 
Christ's  suffering  is  anaphero,  here  properly  enough 
translated  bear;  "  who  his  own  self  bare  our  sins  in 
his  body  on  the  tree, ' '  or  cross. 

This  word  is  used  ten  times  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  never  in  the  sense  of  bearing  punishment 
of  any  kind,  either  by  a  principal  or  a  substitute. 


294  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT 

In  Matthew  xvii.  i,  it  is  rendered  "bringeth" — 
"  bringeth  them  up  into  a  high  mountain  " 

In  Mark  ix.  2,  it  is  rendered  "  leadeth  up" — 
" leadeth  them  up  into  a  high  mountain." 

In  Luk'e  xxiv.  51,  it  is  rendered  "  carried  up" — 
"carried  up  into  heaven."  No  substitution,  no 
penalty  here. 

In  every  other  instance  it  is  used  of  priestly 
functions,  or  to  express  the  offering  up  of  sacrifice. 

In  Hebrews  vii.  27,  it  is  rendered  "offered  up" — 
when  he  offered  up  himself;"  also,  "  to  offer  up" 
sacrifice. 

In  Hebrews  ix.  28,  it  is  rendered  "  to  bear" — "to 
bare  the  sins  of  many. ' ' 

In  Hebrews  xiii.  15,  it  is  rendered  "  let  us  offer" 
— "let  us  offer  the  sacrifice  of  praise." 

In  James  ii.  21,  it  is  rendered  "when  had  offered" 
— "when  he  had  offered  Isaac,  his  son." 

In  i  Peter  ii.  5,  it  is  rendered  "  to  offer  up" — "to 
offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices." 

In  the  text,  i  Peter  ii.  24,  it  is  rendered  ' '  bear ' ' 
— "bear  our  sins  in  his  body  on  the  tree." 

In  the  light  of  these  facts,  the  obvious  meaning 
of  the  text  is  that  Christ  offered  himself — his  life — 
when  his  body  was  on  the  cross,  a  sacrifice  for  the 
sins  of  the  world.  Or,  that  he  bore  our  sins  in  the 
only  sense  in  which  priests  can  bear  the  sins  of 
others — by  making  propitiation  for  them  and  ren- 
dering their  actual  removal  possible. 

We  have  just  as  much  Bible  authority  to  say  that 
Isaac  was  offered  as  "  a  penal  sacrifice  "as  to  say 
that  Christ  was  offered  as  such  a  sacrifice;  or,  to 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  295 

say  that  Christians  offer  penal  satisfaction  to  justice 
when  they  ' '  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable 
to  God,  by  Jesus  Christ;"  or,  to  say  that  all  re- 
ligious worship  in  heaven  and  on  earth  is  penal. 

2.  Other  terms  of  the  text  taken  in  their  logical 
connection  are  irreconcilable  with  the  penal  theory. 

The  words  "that  we  being  dead  unto  sin  might 
live  unto  righteousness,"  express  not  a  necessary, 
but  a  possible  result  of  Christ's  propitiatory  sacri- 
fice; or,  they  express  the  actual  result  of  his  suffer- 
ing to  believers,  and  to  no  others. 

Penalists  teach  that  the  death  of  Christ  actually 
makes  all  for  whom  he  suffered  dead  to  the  reatus 
poence  of  sin,  thousands  of  years,  it  may  be,  before 
the  sins  are  committed;  but  they  are  compelled  to 
admit  that  the  elect  are  not  made  dead  to  this  reatus 
c^llp^  until  sin  is  actually  committed.  Conse- 
quently, that  those  for  whom  Christ  died  are  both 
dead  to  the  penal  consequences  of  their  sins,  and  at 
the  same  time  alive  to  sin  as  to  their  love,  practice, 
and  guilt  of  sin.  The  elect,  therefore,  according 
to  this  scholastic  scheme,  though  actually  dead  to 
sin  as  to  its  consequences,  yet  actually  live  unto 
unrighteousness,  or  in  the  love,  practice,  and  guilt  of 
sin. 

Such  is  substantially  the  only  explanation  the 
theory  can  give  of  the  words,  "that  being  dead 
unto  sin  we  might  live  unto  righteousness. ' ' 

As  we  have  previously  said,  this  reverses  the 
order  of  nature,  separates  cause  and  effect,  and  re- 
duces the  plan  of  salvation  int»  a  jumble  of  hard 
incongruities. 


296  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

Peter,  however,  teaches  us  that  ' '  we,  being  dead 
to  sins,  should  live  unto  righteousness,"  or  that, 
living  unto  righteousness  is  the  natural  and  sure 
consequence  of  being  dead  to  sins;  and  Paul  (Rom. 
vi.  2,  7)  regards  it  as  an  impossible  thing  to  be  dead 
to  sin,  and  yet  to  live  in  sin.  u  How  shall  we  that 
are  dead  to  sin  live  any  longer  therein  ?  "  "  For  he 
that  is  dead  (to  sin)  is  freed  from  sin. ' '  Paul  did 
not  believe  it  possible  to  be  dead  to  sin  and  yet  live 
in  sin. 

The  doctrine  of  the  text  obviously  is  that  Christ 
having  died  for  our  sins  as  a  sacrificial  offering,  and 
having  arisen  from  the  dead,  became  a  quickening 
spirit,  who  imparts  his  own  death  unto  sin  (Rom. 
vi.  i-n),  and  becomes,  "the  author  of  eternal  sal- 
vation to  them  that  obey  him." 

3.    "By  whose  stripes  ye  were  healed. ' ' 

We  can  not  get  substitution  with  its  invariable 
double  imputation  out  of  these  words.  Try  it,  if 
you  wish,  to  your  own  satisfaction.  Christ  did  not 
become  even  for  a  moment  what  sinners  are,  for 
whom  he  was  wounded ;  nor  did  they  ' '  ipso  facto  ' ' 
instantly  become  in  law  or  in  morals  what  he 
was. 

Rejecting  the  idea  of  substitutionary  suffering, 
the  text  presents  no  difficulty. 

The  words,  "  by  whose  stripes  ye  were  healed, " 
are  used  metonymically — what  the  dying  Christ  suf- 
fered is  put  for  what  the  risen  Christ  actually  does 
— viz. :  heals  us,  or  saves  us.  This  is  a  figure  of 
speech  frequently  used  in  reference  to  Christ  as  the 
author  of  salvation,  and  which  finds  its  reason  or 


NON- PENAL  THEORY.  297 

justification  in  the  obvious  facts  that  if  he  had  not 
suffered  he  could  not  have  died;  if  he  had  not  died, 
he  could  not  have  risen  from  the  dead;  if  he  had 
not  risen  from  the  dead,  he  could  not  have  become 
a  quickening,  life-giving  spirit;  if  he  had  not  be- 
come such  a  spirit,  he  could  not  impart  his  spiritual 
life,  his  holiness,  or  righteousness,  to  others. 

Hence,  why  it  is  that  salvation  in  the  Bible  is 
variously  attributed  to  his  suffering,  to  his  blood,  to 
his  death,  to  his  resurrection,  to  his  holiness,  to  his 
righteousness,  to  his  post-resurrection  life,  to  his 
intercession,  etc.  Any  one  of  these  terms,  when 
it  expresses  the  source  of  salvation,  implies  all  the 
others. 

They  are  related  very  much  as  that  group  of  terms 
used  by  the  Scriptures  to  express  the  various  states 
experienced  by  the  human  mind  in  its  transition 
from  death  unto  life,  such  as  repentance,  faith, 
sanctification,  regeneration,  justification,  adoption, 
a  sealing  unto  the  day  of  redemption  and  salvation. 
Any  one  of  these  terms  implies  the  whole. 

Hence,  it  may  be  pertinently  said  that  by  his 
stripes  all  that  are  spiritually  united  to  him  were 
healed. 

SECTION  III.- — Christ  a  ransom  for  many. 

I  suppose  this  review  of  texts,  relied  upon  to 
support  substitution,  would  be  considered  radically 
defective  if  I  should  fail  to  notice  Matthew  xx.  28, 
and  Mark  x.  45,  which  are  identical  in  form,  and 
which  assert  that  Christ  "came  not  to  be  minis- 
tered unto,  but  to  minister  andjo  give  his  life  a 
ransom  for  many" 


298  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

The  last  part  of  the  text,  which  I  have  under- 
scored, is  the  part  in  which  penalists  claim  to  find 
the  proof  of  their  doctrine.  The  Greek  is,  kai 
dounai  ten  psukin  auton  lutron  anti  polton.  The 
decisive  word  is  lutron,  a  ransom  supplemented  by 
anti.  In  view  of  what  has  been  said,  but  little  is 
here  required. 

This  word  hitron  is  used  but  twice  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  is  appropriately  translated.  The 
corresponding  verb,  hw,  is  used  over  forty  times, 
but  is  never  translated  to  ransom,  or  to  deliver  by 
the  payment  of  an  equivalent.  An  examination  of 
the  word  will  satisfy  you  that  it  is  never  used  to 
express  the  idea  of  deliverance  or  salvation  by  en- 
during a  penalty  of  any  sort.  In  fact,  the  engross- 
ing idea  of  ransom  is  deliverance,  and  the  word 
itself  is  indifferent  to  the  means  by  which  the  de- 
liverance is  made.  It  may  be  by  almost  any  means 
whatever  except  by  "penal  satisfaction,"  which, 
of  course,  were  it  possible,  would  not  be  ransom,  or 
deliverance  from  the  evil,  but  the  endurance  of  the 
evil  by  a  substitute. 

Again,  the  word  for  (anti\  it  is  suggested,  re- 
quires us  to  believe  that  there  is  a  commercial  value 
between  the  so-called  penal  sufferings  of  Christ  and 
the  souls  of  the  ' '  many. ' ' 

To  this  I  reply  that  there  is  no  known  standard 
of  valuation  between  penal  suffering  and  the  souls 
of  men.  The  penal  explanation  of  the  text  in- 
volves two  assumptions  which  render  it  worthless — 
first,  that  the  death  was  penal  and  substitutionary; 
and  secondly,  that  penal  suffering  actually  ransoms, 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  299 

or  saves.  If  these  gratuitous  assumptions  are  true, 
then  of  course  gehenna  is,  or  will  become,  ' '  a  land 
uninhabited." 

On  the  contrary,  if  we  reject  the  idea  of  a  penal 
ransom,  then  we  readily  see  how  Christ,  by  giving 
his  life  in  the  interest  of  humanity,  becomes  the 
ransomer  of  all  that  obey  him,  as  previously  ex- 
plained. 

SECTION  IV. — Christ  redeems  us  by  his  blood,  etc. 

Penalists  rely  with  much  confidence  upon  those 
texts  in  which  the  words  redeem  and  redemption 
occur,  such  as : 

1.  (Rev.  v.  9)  "For    thou  wast  slain  and   hast 
redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood." 

2.  (Gal.  iii.  13)  "Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us;  for 
it  is  written,  '  cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on 
a  tree.'  " 

3.  (Titus  ii.  14)  ' '  Who  gave  himself  for  us  that 
he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity. ' ' 

4.  (i    Peter  i.    18,  19)  "Forasmuch  as  ye  know 
that  ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things, 
as  silver  and  gold,   .  .   .  but  with  the  precioiis  blood 
of  Christ  as  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without 
spot." 

These  texts  are  all  claimed  as  supporting  the 
commercial  and  the  penal  theory  of  the  atonement. 
I  feel  free  to  say,  however,  that  they  teach  neither 
commerciality  nor  criminality  in  the  death  of 
Christ.  I  need  not  examine  these  texts  seriatim. 
A  few  general  statements  will  serve  the  interests  of 
truth  as  well. 


300  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

i.  Three  different  words,  all  translated  ' '  redeem, ' ' 
are  used  in  these  texts,  (i)  The  first,  agorazo,  is 
generally  used  in  a  commercial  sense,  but  to  this 
there  are  many  exceptions  (see  i  Cor.  vi.  20;  vii. 
23;  2  Peter  ii.  i;  Rev.  iii.  18;  xiv.  3,  4). 

In  all  these  instances  the  word  is  used  in  a  non- 
commercial sense,  or  means  to  procure  or  secure 
without  commercial  value,  and  of  course  without 
penal  suffering. 

.  The  second  word,  exagorazo,  is  used  but  four 
times,  and  never  in  a  commercial  sense.  It  is  twice 
used  of  time  (Eph.  v.  16;  Col.  iv.  5) — "redeeming 
the  time." 

The  other  instances  of  its  use  (Gal.  iii.  13;  iv.  5) 
have  been  sufficiently  noticed. 

The  third  is  lutroo,  which  is  used  but  three  times 
(Titus  ii.  14;  i  Peter  i.  18;  Lukexxiv.  21),  and  never 
in  a  commercial  sense,  or  a  penal  sense. 

(Luke  xxiv.  21)  u  But  we  hoped  that  it  was  he 
which  should  redeem  Israel." 

The  Jews,  of  course,  understood  their  own 
tongue.  Did  they  expect  Christ  to  redeem  Israel 
commercially,  or  by  other  means  than  the  literal 
payment  of  a  price?  The  Jews  expected  their 
Messiah  to  redeem  them  temporally  without  money 
and  without  price.  And  in  like  manner  Paul 
(Titus  ii.  14)  teaches  us  that  Christ  "gave  himself 
that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,"  and 
Peter  (i  Peter  i.  18)  "Ye  were  not  redeemed  with 
corruptible  things  as  silver  and  gold,  .  .  .  but  with 
the  precious  blood  of  Christ. ' ' 

Query. — How  could  the  blood  of  Christ  be  prop- 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  301 

erly  accounted  precious  if  it  was  the  blood  of  a 
criminal  by  imputation;  for,  according  to  the  the- 
ory, imputed  guilt  is  not  less  odious  or  less  real  in 
the  substitute  than  in  the  principal,  for  Adam's 
guilt,  it  is  held,  makes  us  as  truly  guilty  as  was 
Adam?  Is  the  blood  of  a  criminal  precious  to 
God? 

My  next  general  statement  is  that  these  words, 
when  applied  to  Christ  or  to  God  as  the  redeemer, 
always  exclude  the  idea  of  commerciality,  of  equiv- 
alent value,  and  of  "penal  satisfaction."  The  bare 
notion  that  God,  the  Father  of  Mercies,  can  be 
' '  compensated ' '  by  penal  suffering,  or  by  any  other 
means  possible  to  men  or  angels,  good  or  bad, 
would  be  regarded  as  a  blind  superstition  if  it  did 
not  have  the  support  of  the  good  and  great. 

You  should  never  cease  to  remember  that  when 
God  or  Christ,  is  the  redeemer,  deliverance  comes, 
not  by  equivalent  value  or  ' '  penal  satisfaction, ' ' 
but  by  some  other  means  more  honorable  to  God 
and  better  adapted  to  the  nature  and  needs  of  men. 
I  might,  but  need  not,  cite  you  to  scores  of  texts 
in  attestation  of  this  proposition.  With  concord- 
ance in  hand  you  can  easily  satisfy  yourselves. 

Perhaps  you  may  desire  some  further  explanation 
of  Gal.  iii.  13 : 

"  Christ  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
having  become  a  curse  for  us;  for  it  is  written, 
Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree." 

i.  In  what  sense  did  Christ  become -a  curse  for 
us  ?  The  Greek  here  is  katara,  and  means  literally 


302  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

"a  prayer  against,"  an  execration,  and,  hence, 
comes  to  mean  punishment,  or  the  endurance  of 
suffering  or  death. 

Every  one  that  hung  or  died  upon  a  tree  for  any 
cause  whatever  was  called  accursed.  (Deut.  xxi. 
23.)  Christ  died  for  us  upon  the  cross,  and,  there- 
fore, it  is  said  he  became  a  curse  for  us.  His  death 
was  by  his  persecutors  intended  as  a  punishment 
for  blasphemy;  but  by  himself  it  was  intended  as  a 
propitiatory  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  was  accepted  as 
such. 

2.  But  how  does  Christ,  having  been  a  curse  for  us 
in  this  sense,  redeem  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law? 

(1)  The  curse  of  the  law  is  the  curse  or  evil  of 
disobedience  in  not  loving  God  with  all  the  heart, 
etc.,  which  no  fallen  creature  is  able  to  do. 

(2)  Christ  having  perfectly  obeyed  this  law — even 
unto  death — and  being  raised  from  the  dead,  "dieth 
no  more, ' '  so  that  ' '  death  hath  no  more  dominion 
over  him. ' '     He  thus  becomes  a  quickening  spirit, 
(i  Cor.  xv.  45)  who  quickens  into  newness  of  life 
all  that  are  united  to  him  by  f.uth.     "And  you  did 
he  quicken  when  you  were  deed  in  your  trespasses 
and  sins."     (Eph.  ii.  i.) 

' '  But  God,  .  .  .  when  we  were  dead  through  our 
trespasses,  quickened  us  (gave  to  us  spiritual  life) 
together  with  Christ  (or  in  Christ) ;  (by  grace  are  ye 
saved),  and  raised  us  up  (from  spiritual  death)  with 
him  and  made  us  to  sit  with  him  in  heavenly  places 
in  Christ  Jesus,  .  .  .  for  by  grace  have  you  been 
saved  through  faith ;  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it 
is  the  gift  of  God  "  (Eph.  ii.  4-6,  8). 


NON-PENAL  THEORY. 


303 


Thus  by  faith  in  Christ  we  are  unified  with 
Christ — are  made  partakers  of  his  death  unto  sin — 
die  unto  sin  with  him,  rather  in  him.  (Rom.  vi.  8, 
ii.)  But  to  be  dead  in  Christ  unto  sin  is  to  be 
alive  unto  God  in  him.  (Rom.  vi.  n;  Gal.  ii.  19.) 
Thus  it  is  that  by  union  with  him,  or  by  being 
made  partakers  of  his  righteousness,  Christ  re- 
deems (delivers)  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  or 
from  our  state  of  spiritual  death  under  the  law.  ' '  Ye 
also  are  made  dead  to  the  law  through  the  body  of 
Christ."  (Rom.  vii.  4;  Gal.  ii.  19.  This  is  "the 
law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus,  which 
makes  (all  united  to  Christ  by  faith)  free  from  the 
law  of  sin  and  death. ' '  (Rom.  viii.  2. ) 

This  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  question  as  to 
how  Christ  redeems — delivers — us  from  the  curse 
of  the  law,  "having  become  a  curse  for  us."  You 
can  not  fail  to  see  the  utter  insufficiency  of  the  sub- 
stitutionary  method  of  freeing  us  from  the  curse  of 
the  law.  The  subject  will  be  further  considered  in 
another  connection. 

SECTION  V. — The  prepositional  argument. 

Prepositions  are  not  very  substantial  things  upon 
which  to  found  an  argument.  Certainly  they  do 
not  make  good  corner-stones  for  massive  super- 
structures. They  are  often  too  equivocal,  too  am- 
biguous, too  indefinite,  to  be  implicitly  relied  upon 
for  the  solution  of  intricate  aud  complex  ques- 
tions. 

Still  they  have  their  exegetical  and  logical  value 
in  determining  propositions. 

Substitutionists  sometimes  invoke  aid  from  this 


304  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

source,  and  so  manipulate  them  as  to  claim  support 
from  them. 

I  think  they  lose  rather  than  gain  by  their  en- 
deavors. L/et  us  see  whether  this  is  not  so. 

There  are  several  prepositions  used  to  express  the 
relation  of  Christ's  death  to  us  or  our  sins,  etc.;  as 
anti,  dia,  huper. 

Of  these,  anti  is  thought  to  be  most  favorable  to 
substitution,  because  it  is  often  used  in  a  commer- 
cial sense ;  or  to  express  equivalence  of  value.  It  is 
assumed  that  when  dia  and  huper  are  used,  that 
they  should  be  taken  as  synonyms  of  anti.  The 
argument  though  somewhat  specious,  is  essentially 
spurious. 

1.  Anti  is  used  about  twenty  times,  and  in  only 
three  instances  does  it  have  reference  to  Christ's 
death :  Matt.  xx.  25;  Mark  x.  45  (which  have  been 
previously  noticed);    and  Heb.   xii.   2 — "Who  for 
(anti)  the  joy  that  was  set  before  him  endured  the 
cross,  despising  the  shame,"  etc. 

In  this  text,  as  you  can  not  fail  to  see,  anti  ex- 
presses Christ's  motive  in  enduring  the  cross,  and 
not  any  equivalency  between  the  value  of  his  suf- 
fering and  the  glory  set  before  him. 

We  have  above  seen  that  both  the  other  instances 
of  its  use  exclude  the  idea  of  redemption  from  sin 
by  an  equivalent  value  of  penal  suffering. 

2.  The  argument  is  improbable  from  its  very  ex- 
travagance.    The  word  dia  is  used  in  reference  to 
the  objects  of  Christ's  death  but  few  times.     ''Rom. 
iv.  25;  i  Cor.  viii.  n.) 

Huper  is  the  preposition  which  is  used  generally 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  305 

for  the  purpose  in  question.     It  is  so  used  near  for- 
ty times. 

Now,  observe  that  this  word  huper  is  not  used  to 
express  the  idea  of  equivalency  of  value,  or  com- 
merciality.     Though  it  is  used  over  one  hundred 
and  fifty  times,  I  call  to  mind  no  instance  of  its  use* 
in  this  sense. 

With  these  facts  before  us,  does  it  not  seem  an 
extravagant  assumption  to  say  that  huper,  when  it 
refers  to  Christ' s  passion,  must  be  taken  as  a  syno- 
nym of  anti  in  its  commercial  sense  ?  Whether  is 
it  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  huper,  out  of  one 
hundred  and  fifty  instances  of  its  use,  should  be 
taken  forty  times  out  of  its  usual  non-commercial 
sense;  or  that  anti,  out  of  the  twenty  instances  of 
its  use,  should  be  three  times  taken  in  its  non-com- 
mercial sense  ?  The  only  excuse  for  such  improb- 
able assumptions  is  that  the  exigencies  of  the  the- 
ory require  them. 

But,  after  all,  the  word  anti,  is  utterly  unable  to 
serve  the  ends  for  which  it  is  invoked.  It  may  ex- 
press equality  of  position  or  equivalency  of  value, 
but  can  never  give  us  substitution  with  its  invaria- 
ble double  imputation. 

Take  Matt.  ii.  22:  "Archelaus  did  reign  in  Ju- 
dea  in  the  room  of  (anti]  his  father,  Herod. ' '  The 
son  succeeds  the  father  on  the  throne,  but  they  did 
not  change  places  or  conditions.  "An  eye  for 
(anti}  an  eye."  This  is  retaliation,  not  substitu- 
tion. To  take  your  neighbor's  eye  is  not  to  give 
him  yours;  there  is  no  exchange  of  conditions  as 
substitution  requires. 
20 


306  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

Taken  in  a  strictly  commercial  sense,  the  word 
still  fails  to  support  the  theory.  If  you  give  a  dol- 
lar for  a  book,  there  is  presumed  to  be  an  exchange 
of  equivalent  values,  but  no  interchange  of  quali- 
ties, either  between  the  book  and  the  dollar,  or  be- 
'tween  you  and  the  salesman.  In  fact,  it  is  because 
there  is  no  such  exchange  of  qualities  that  you  buy 
the  book — you  get  what  suits  you  better. 

Substitution,  without  double  imputation  is  of 
no  value;  but  double  imputation  is  a  conception 
impossible  of  realization  in  the  sphere,  either  of 
matter  or  mind — in  physical,  commercial,  or  moral 
law. 

Having  indicated  many  of  the  radical  defects  of 
the  penal  theory  of  atonement,  and  having  present- 
ed the  fundamental  principles  of  a  different  scheme 
and  answered  the  objections  to  which  it  may  be  ad- 
judged obnoxious,  I  propose  now  to  consider  such 
questions  as  experience  in  the  class-room  has  taught 
me  are  likely  to  arise  in  the  minds  of  students  who 
are  more  or  less  embarrassed  by  their  previously 
formed  opinions  and  prejudices  in  faver  of  sub- 
stitution. 

This  plan  of  procedure  will  involve  some  repeti- 
tion. But  this  repetition,  while  it  may  be  consid- 
ered a  defect,  simply  because  it  is  a  repetition  will, 
nevertheless,  be  more  than  compensated  by  the  ad- 
vantages of  having  the  subject  presented  in  differ- 
ent forms,  and  with  more  fullness  of  detail. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  307 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

SECTION  I. — Some  special  questions  concerning 
atonement. 

It  is  often  asked,  Do  atonements  have  any  influ- 
ence upon  the  divine  mind  ? 

1.  It  is  asserted  by  many  that  what  is  called  the 
great  atonement  has  no  influence  upon  God  or  the 
relations  of  men  to  him;  that  it  expends  its  force 
upon   the   human   mind  in  the  way  of  example, 
Christ  being  only  an  exemplar — yet  perfect  exem- 
plar— whom  all  men  should  follow. 

This,  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  is  an  unscriptural  view 
of  the  subject  Christ's  exemplary  life,  though 
perfect  in  itself,  is  no  atonement  for  men  in  any 
intelligible  sense;  nor  does  it  constitute  any  part  of 
atonement. 

2.  We  know  that  human  atonements,  made  by 
confession  of  faults,  reparations  of  injuries,  do  have 
an  effect  upon  the  minds  of  aggrieved  parties.     In 
fact,  the  propitiation  consists  in  this  effect;  if  this 
effect  is  not  produced,  no  propitiation,  no  atone- 
ment is  made. 

3.  We  also  know  that  all  the  atonements  to  which 
I  have  referred,   even  those  made  for  the   "holy 
place  and  the  altar,"  and  "  the  holy  things  offered 
to  the  Lord"  had  some  sort  of  influence— produced 


308  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

some  change — in  the  relations  of  the  things  for 
which  they  were  made. 

4.  Those  atonements  made  by  Moses,  Aaron,  and 
Phineas,  as  also  those  ritual  atonements,  regularly 
made  by  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  are  distinctly  rep- 
resented as  turning  away  the  wrath  of  God.  To 
say  that  these  atonements  had  no  influence  upon 
the  divine  mind  would  be  to  say  that  the  Bible  is  a 
book  of  shams,  rather  than  of  realities. 

SECTION  II. — If  atonements  imply  an  influence 
upon  the  divine  mind,  it  is  asked,  What  is  the 
nature  of  that  influence  ? 

1.  The   Bible   says,    "God   is   love."      But  we 
know  by  experience  that  love  and  anger,  indigna- 
tion, displeasure,  etc.,  are  not  incompatible  things. 

Love  is  an  essential  attribute  of  God — persistent, 
immutable.  But  indignation,  anger,  pleasure,  and 
displeasure  as  applied  to  the  deity  are  not  attributes, 
but  states  of  the  divine  mind,  which  may  vary  ac- 
cording to  the  conduct  of  men.  Hence,  God  is 
said  to  be  angry  with  the  wicked,  yet  so  loved 
them,  as  to  give  his  only  begotten  Son  to  save 
them. 

2.  No  atonement  changes  the  attributes  or  nature 
of  God.     All  atonements  made  by  merely  human 
priests  for  immaterial  things,  as  the  altar,  etc. ,  only 
formally  changed  his  relation  to  them;  those  made 
for  men  in  accordance  with  the  tabernacle  service 
symbolically  changed  his  relation  to  those  for  whom 
they  were  made ;  those  made  on  extraordinary  occa- 
sions, as  by  Moses,  Aaron,   and  Phineas,  changed 
his  emotional  relations  so  as  to  abate  his  just  indig- 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  309 

nation,  and  induce  him  to  spare  the  seditious  of- 
fenders whom  he  might  justly  have  destroyed. 

3.  You  should  distinctly  observe  that  in  these 
cases  God  did  not  spare  the  offenders  because  of 
repentance,  or  any  other  proper  conduct  on  their 
part,  but  purely  and  exclusively  for  the  sake  of  the 
fidelity — the  loving  fidelity  and  zeal  of  his  accred- 
ited priests. 

4.  You  should  also  remember  these  atonements 
saved  the  rebels  only  from  extraordinary  and  tem- 
poral evil — a  judicial  and  exemplary  death — and 
not  from  the  natural  retributions  of  their  sins. 

5.  In  this  respect  these  atonements  differ  essen- 
tially from  the  propitiation  made  by  Christ,  which 
relates  to  all  sin  and  its  natural  retributions. 

By  the  former,  the  offenders  were  not  released 
from  their  sins,  but  only  from  the  judicial  and  tem- 
poral consequences  of  their  seditions.  But  by  the 
latter,  men  are  not  necessarily  released,  but  may 
be  released  from  their  sins  themselves,  which,  of 
course,  releases  them  from  the  natural  retributions 
of  their  sins.  This  deliverance  from  sin  itself  is 
effected,  as  we  have  seen,  by  the  impartation  of 
Christ's  holy  nature — his  spiritual  life — to  those 
united  to  him  by  faith,  and  who  are  consequently 
saved  by  him,  and  for  his  sake.  The  spiritual  life 
that  they  now  live,  they  live  by  faith  in  him 
(Gal.  ii.  20),  or  they  live  because  Christ  lives  (John 
xiv.  19). 

6.  God,  therefore,  recognizes  those  that  believe 
in  Jesus  as  righteous,  simply  because  they  are  made 
partakers  of  Christ's  righteousness — not  imputed, 


310  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

but  imparted  to  them.     Christ  is  literally  the  Lord, 
our  righteousness  ( Jer.  xxiii.  6;  xxxiii.  26). 

7.  The  effect  of  the  sacrificial  death  upon  God  is 
different  from  that  of  other  atonements  mentioned 
in  the  Bible,  yet,  like  all  others,  it  propitiates  in 
some  sense,  so  that  God  can  be  merciful  without 
being  unjust — can  pardon  without  punishment,  so 
that  salvation  is  purely  a  matter  of  grace,  and  not 
of  penalty. 

8.  The  sacrificial  death  of  Christ  seems  to  propi- 
tiate, because  it  was  an  act  of  perfect  obedience — 
obedience  unto  death — which,  as  a  sacrifice,  was  to 
God  a  sweet-smelling  savor,  and  which  furnishes 
an  expedient  by  which  justice  and  mercy  fully  con- 
cur in  the  salvation  of  believers  and  all  the  prerog- 
atives of  God  as  universal   Father  and  Governor 
are  fully  honored — that  is,  we  are  saved  by  grace, 
not  by  law,  nor  in  violation  of  law,  but  in  accord- 
ance with  law. 

SECTION  III. — But  how  can  atonement  produce 
such  effects  ?  This  question  is  often  put. 

i.  The  form  of  the  question  betrays  some  misap- 
prehension. Atonement  is  itself  an  effect  produced 
upon  the  divine  mind  by  the  acts,  or  rather  the 
mental  states,  of  which  the  external  acts  are  only 
the  sensible  expression. 

(This  last  named  fact  explains  how  the  Son  of 
God,  though  crucified  less  than  two  thousand  years 
ago,  was  the  great  atoner  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world.) 

The  real  point  intended  by  the  question  is,  How 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  311 

can  the  acts  or  mental  states  of  one  mind  produce 
such  propitiatory  effects  upon  another. 

Omniscience  alone,  I  suppose,  could  answer  the 
question.  To  know  a  fact,  and  to  understand  why 
it  is  a  fact,  are  essentially  different  things. 

If  you  were  asked,  Why  the  confession  of  an  of- 
fense tends  to  take  away  the  indignation  of  the 
offended  party,  you  probably  would  reply  that  you 
do  not  know,  or  that  God  has  so  constituted  the 
human  mind  as  to  make  confession  the  natural  and, 
therefore,  the  sufficient  reason  for  pardoning  an  of- 
fense. 

What  God  has  made  an  indigenous  law  of  the  hu- 
man mind  and  a  rule  of  human  conduct  is,  perhaps, 
a  characteristic  of  his  own  mind,  and  a  rule  of  his 
own  administration. 

If  He  who  knows  all  things  was  pleased  to  accept 
the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ  and  make  it  a  pre- 
requisite to  the  pardon  of  human  sin,  by  imparting 
his  righteousness  to  those  that  believe  on  him,  we 
need  not  object,  because  we  can  not  comprehend 
how  one  mind  acts  upon  another.  (John  iii.  8.) 

SECTION  IV. — It  has  been  asked,  whether  Christ's 
propitiatory  work  has  any  influence  upon  the  human 
mind  ? 

I  should  say  it  has  no  effect  upon  the  mind  itself — 
does  not  affect  either  its  legal  or  moral  states. 
This  fact  will  be  made  sufficiently  plain. 

But  as  Christ  was  ' '  delivered  for  our  offenses, 
and  was  raised  again  for  our  justification  "  (Rom. 
iv.  25),  it  is  presumed  that  what  he  did  had  an  im- 
portant effect  upon  man's  relations  to  God — mak- 


312  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

ing  him  a  prisoner  of  hope  and  procuring  for  him 
a  salvable  state.  This,  I  think,  is  what  the  Bible 
teaches. 

Substitutionists,  you  know,  would  dissent  from 
this,  and  affirm  that  Christ's  death  of  itself,  and  of 
necessity,  did  actually  change  the  legal  state  of  all 
for  whom  he  suffered,  releasing  them  from  all  lia- 
bility to  punishment,  and  make  it  a  matter  of 
sheer  justice  that  God  shall  (at  his  own  pleasure) 
change  their  moral  state  by  taking  away  their  mor- 
al corruption. 

These  positions  have  been  shown  to  be  both  un- 
reasonable and  uuscriptural.  It  seems  to  be  suffi- 
cient here  to  say : 

(1)  That  the  death  of  Christ  did  not  change  the 
moral  condition  of  men — did  not  destroy  their  en- 
mity to  God,  or  cause  them  to  love  him  supremely, 
and   their  neighbor  as   themselves.       This   moral 
change,  though  possible  only  through  the  death  of 
Christ,  is   not  the   necessary  legal   effect  of   that 
death.     God  is  not  bound  by  infinite  justice  to  save 
all  or  any  for  whom  Christ  died ;  else  he  would  not 
condition  their  salvation  upon  spiritual  union  with 
Christ,  or  upon  faith,  or  any  thing  else. 

(2)  Nor  does  the  death  of  Christ  "  ipso  facto"  re- 
lease from  punishment  those  for  whom  he  died;  for 
"he   that  believeth   not  is   condemned    already" 
(John  iii.  18,  36),  and  he  that  is  condemned  is  not 
exempt  from  punishment.         „ 

Nor  is  the  salvation  of  any  man  assured  by  the 
simple  fact  that  Christ  died  for  him.  (Rom.  xiv. 
15;  i  Cor.  viii.  u.) 


NON- PENAL  THEORY.  313 

Hence,  it  is  certainly  true,  the  Bible  being  the 
test,  that  the  unbeliever  is  as  truly  corrupt  and  as 
truly  condemned,  though  Christ  died  for  him,  as  he 
could  be  if  Christ  had  never  died  for  him. 

Having  seen  what  the  death  of  Christ  does  not 
do  for  men,  let  us  see  what  it  does  actually  secure 
to  men. 

1.  It  secures  all  needed  illumination,  as  to  God 
and  to  himself,  so  as  to  enable  him  to  repent  of  his 
sins  (Luke  xxiv.  46)  and  come  boldly  to  the  throne 
of  grace,  obtain  mercy,  and  find  grace  to  help  in 
time  of  need.     (Heb.  iv.  16.) 

2.  The  mediation  of  Christ  furnishes  objective 
ground,  and  the  only  objective  ground  of  faith  that 
God  will  avouch  to  us — a  gracious ,  pardon  of  our 
sins.     These  two  points  are  of  vital  importance, 
and  will  receive  further  notice  in  the  next  section. 

SECTION  V. — The  question  is  often  put  with, 
great  emphasis  and  earnestness,  If  the  Bible  imper- 
atively requires  confession  or  repentance,  as  a  con- 
dition precedent  to  pardon,  and  God  is  faithful  and 
just  to  forgive  all  that  repent  (i  John  i.  9),  then, 
why  is  any  atonement  necessary  at  all?  Confes- 
sion or  repentance,  it  is  alleged,  is  a  sufficient 
ground  for  forgiveness  among  men,  and  God  re- 
quires us  to  forgive  one  another  on  this  ground 
alone.  Then,  why  is  not  repentance  of  itself  a 
sufficient  ground  of  forgiveness  of  sins  against 
God? 

This  is  one  of  the  most  important  and,  withal, 
one  of  the  most  difficult  questions  connected  with 
the  whole  subject  of  atonement. 


314  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

Looking  at  the  subject  in  the  light  of  this  objec- 
tion, thousands  of  honest  men  have  rejected  the 
doctrine  of  atonement  as  unreasonable  and  super- 
erogatory. In  my  own  experience  with  classes, 
I  have  found  it  exceedingly  difficult  to  satisfy 
some  students  that  any  propitiation  at  all  is 
necessary. 

The  question,  therefore,  seems  to  demand  some 
careful  attention. 

1.  Ijt  does  not  follow  that  because  repentance  is  a 
sufficient  ground  of  forgiveness  between  man  and 
man,  that  it  is  therefore  a  sufficient  ground  of  for- 
giveness between  man  and  God. 

Between  man  and  man  there  is  equality  of  nat- 
ure. Hence,  their  disagreements  or  enmities  are  in- 
cidental, not  constitutional  and  necessary.  Hence, 
no  change  of  their  nature  is  necessary  to  their  rec- 
onciliation, but  only  a  change  of  an  adventitious 
state  of  mind.  Hence,  bare  confession  of  a  fault  is 
a  sufficient  ground  of  forgiveness.  This  forgive- 
ness requires  only  a  change  of  feeling,  and  not  a 
change  of  inborn  characteristics  of  mind. 

2.  On  the  contrary,,  what  is  required  in  order  to 
deliverance  from  sin  against  God  is   not   a   mere 
change  of  an  accidental  state  of  the  passions,  but  a 
change  of  the  heart  from  an  inborn  constitutional 
bias  to  evil — a  natal  enmity  to  God  and  insubordi- 
nation to  his  will.     This  change  involved  in  for- 
giveness of  sin  is  .represented  as  a  regeneration,  a 
renewal  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  new  creation,  a  being 
born  from  above,  or  of  God. 

3.  No  repentance  is  sufficient  ground  for  so  radi- 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  315 

cal  a  change.  In  fact,  repentance  is  no  part  of  its 
ground  at  all,  but  only  its  condition. 

The  objection  assumes  that  repentance  is  possible 
without  the  mediation  of  Christ,  or  that  men  could 
repent  of  sin  as  effectually  without  this  mediation 
as  with  it.  This,  however,  is  a  fatal  error;  for  it  is 
this  mediation  that  renders  repentance  itself  possi- 
ble. (Ivuke  xxiv.  46,  47;  Phil.  ii.  6-n.) 

Repentance  is  the  grant  of  Christ,  the  quickening 
spirit,  without  whose  influence  repentance  unto  life 
is  impossible.  (Acts  xi.  18.) 

All  divine  and  saving  influence  is  avouched  to 
men  by  the  mediation  of  the  risen  Christ.  (John 
xvi.  7*-n;  i  Cor.  xii.  1-13.) 

4.  But  even  if  repentance,  independent  of  this 
divine  influence,  was  possible,  it  could  not  be  ac- 
cepted as  a  ground  of  forgiveness;  for  nothing — ab- 
solutely nothing — is  acceptable  to  God,  which  is 
not  sanctified  or  separated  unto  him.  But,  what- 
ever is  sanctified  or  appropriated  unto  him  is  accept- 
able to  him.  (Rom.  xii.  i;  Heb.  ix.  13.)  Nor  can 
any  other  than  a  divinely-consecrated  priest  sanctify 
or  offer  acceptable  sacrifices. 

This  fact  is  fearfully  exemplified  by  Saul's  at- 
tempt to  offer  sacrifices  without  priestly  authority, 
which  cost  him  his  kingdom,  (i  Sam.  xiii.  9-14.) 
Also  by  the  attempt  of  Korah,  and  the  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  men  of  renown  to  burn  incense, 
which  was  a  function  of  the  priesthood  alone. 
You  will  observe  that  the  burning  of  incense  by 
these  „  men  not  consecrated  to  the  priestly  office, 
provoked  God's  anger  and  cost  them  their  lives; 


316  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

but  the  same  act  performed  by  Aaron,  the  high- 
priest,  turned  away  God's  auger  and  saved  the  na- 
tion. (Num.  xxv.) 

Why  this  difference?  Because,  and  only  because, 
Aaron  had  been  consecrated  to  the  priesthood,  but 
Korah  had  not. 

Nor  does  God  accept  even  what  is  sanctified  from 
unsanctified  hands.  This  fact  is  strikingly  illus- 
trated by  his  indignant  rejection  of  the  incense  of- 
fering made  by  Korah  and  those  allied  with  him. 
The  incense,  and  the  censers  in  which  it  was 
burned  were  sanctified,  yet  Korah' s  act  was  regard- 
ed and  punished  as  sacrilege. 

The  reason  of  this  rejection  of  whatever  is  un- 
sanctified, and  the  acceptance  of  whatever  is  sancti- 
fied seems  to  be  simply  the  fact  that  there  is  no 
congruity,  nothing  in  common,  no  fellowship  be- 
tween the  holy  and  the  unholy.  What  communion 
hath  light  with  darkness  ?  And  what  concord  hath 
Christ  with  Belial  ?  (i  Cor.  vi.  14-18.) 

God  is  holy,  but  the  sinner  is  unholy — is  of  him- 
self out  of  fellowship  with  God,  because  not  sanc- 
tified or  consecrated  to  God. 

If  he  could,  by  an  act  of  will,  put  himself  into  a 
state  of  thorough  consecratedness,  then  he  would 
be  his  own  sanctifier,  atoner,  and  savior.  But  even 
to  will  to  thus  consecrate  himself  to  God  is  impos- 
sible without  divine  aid,  as  we  have  seen.  God 
works  in  him  (not  the  will)  but  "  to  will"  (Phil, 
ii.  13.) 

This  divine  aid  comes  only  through  the  media- 
tion of  Christ,  the  quickening  spirit. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  317 

The  sinner  can  not,  therefore,  sanctify  himself, 
for  none  but  the  sanctified  can  sanctify — none  but 
the  holy  can  make  holy.  To  require  a  man  un- 
sanctified  to  sanctify  himself  is  to  require  an  im- 
possibility. We  might  as  well  expect  the  Ethi- 
opian to  change  his  skin  or  the  leopard  its  spots. 

Hence,  the  unsanctified  sinner  could  never  sanc- 
tify himself,  or  make  propitiation  for  himself,  or 
repent,  or  do  any  thing  acceptable  to  God,  even  if 
he  could  know  just  what  is  necessary  to  his  recon- 
ciliation to  God. 

The  sanctuary,  the  holy  place,  the  altar,  the  holy 
things  offered  in  religious  worship  among  the  Jews, 
all  required  propitiation  to  be  made  for  them  by 
priestly  consecrations. 

If  these  things,  without  moral  qualities,  required 
to  be  consecrated,  in  order  to  be  acceptable  to  God, 
we  can  very  readily  see  why  sinful  humanity  needs  to 
be  sanctified  or  consecrated  to  God  before  he  could 
accept  them  or  any  acts  of  worship  at  their  hands. 

Hence,  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  sanctifica- 
tion  of  humanity  by  a  priest  in  his  own  right,  who 
gave  ' '  himself  for  us  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  to 
God  for  a  sweet-smelling  savor." 

We  are  accordingly  expressly  told  (Heb.  xiii.  10— 
12)  that  u  Jesus,  that  he  might  sanctify  the  people 
with  his  own  blood,  suffered  without  the  gate. ' ' 

This  sanctification  of  all  humanity  (Jews  and 
Gentiles)  is  indicated  by  his  suffering  without  the 
gate. 

By  virtue  of  this  one  sacrificial  offering  all  hu- 
manity is  so  sanctified  that  every  man  may  bring 


318  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

his  offerings  before  the  mercy-seat,  or  to  Christ,  his 
great  high-priest,  and  find  acceptance.  This  is  the 
new  and  living  way. 

You  should  note  the  important  fact  that  this 
sanctification  of  all  humanity  by  this  sacrificial  of- 
fering does  not  affect  the  moral  or  the  legal  condi- 
tion of  men.  The  atonement  made  for  the  altar 
did  not  affect  the  altar  itself,  but  only  its  relation 
to  God.  The  great  atonement  for  humanity  was 
as  truly  made  independently  of  human  volition  as 
was  the  atonement  for  the  altar  made  independently 
of  the  altar.  But  as  the  atonement  made  for  the 
altar  rendered  it  acceptable  to  God,  so  every  human 
being  is  rendered  so  far  acceptable  to  God  that  he 
may  consecrate  himself  to  God  through  Christ, 
"who  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to 
every  one  that  believeth." 

Hence,  the  sinner's  confession,  repentance,  etc., 
do  not  constitute  the  grounds  of  his  acceptance 
with  God  at  all.  Hence,  he  is  not  accepted  for 
the  sake  of  his  prayers,  repentance,  or  any  thing 
else  possible  to  him,  but  for  Christ's  sake  alone. 

This  method  of  coming  to  God  through  Christ  is 
beautifully  illustrated  by  the  tabernacle  service. 
The  atonement  made  by  the  high-priest  on  the 
"great  day  of  atonenent"  was  made  with  victims 
taken  from  among  the  people  and  for  all  the  people 
— for  one  no  more  and  no  less  than  another.  By 
virtue  of  this  great  propitiation,  each  individual 
could  bring  for  himself  his  own  sacrificial  victim 
to  the  tabernacle,  and  having  put  his  hands  upon 
its  head  in  benediction,  that  it  might  be  accepted, 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  319 

turned  it  over  to  the  priest,  by  whom  its  blood — its 
life — was  put  upon  the  holy  altar,  which  sanctified 
it  and  rendered  it  acceptable,  as  an  act  of  worship, 
through  the  great  atonement  made  by  the  high- 
priest.  These  individual  sacrifices,  which  were 
accepted  through  the  great  atonement,  were  in- 
tended as  ritual  supplications  for  divine  favor,  and 
were  absolutely  so  regarded  by  the  Jews.  Saul 
actually  identifies  them  with  "supplication,"  and 
Abraham  as  worship  (i  Sam.  xiii.  12;  Gen.  xxii.  5.) 
The  whole  service  symbolized  the  worshiper's 
consecration  to  God,  through  Christ,  who  is  the 
propitiation  for  sin. 

Let  it  be  distinctly  noted  that  these  and  all  other 
individual  sacrifices  were  made  allowable  and  effect- 
ive only  by  virtue  of  the  great  atonement  made  by 
the  high-priest.  This  atonement  was  the  true  sym- 
bol of  the  mediation  of  the  crucified  and  risen  Christ 
the  life-giving  spirit. 

Hence,  the  individual  sacrifices  among  the  Jews 
sustained  to  the  great  atonement  exactly  the  same 
relation  that  our  religious  worship — prayers,  thanks- 
giving, and  offerings  of  all  kinds,  public  and  private 
— sustain  to  Jesus  Christ,  our  atoning  sacrifice  and 
priest.  He  is  our  altar  (Heb.  xiii.  10-15)  upon 
which  we  lay  ourselves  and  our  offering,  and  which 
sanctifies  even-  thing  that  touches  it  and  renders  it 
acceptable  to  God  (Rom.  xii.  i.). 

Faith,  which  implies  repentance,  confession,  and 
supplication,  is  the  hand  by  which  we  lay  ourselves 
upon  this  altar;  but  only  that  which  is  laid  upon 
it  is  consecrated  and  accepted. 


320  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

By  this  contact  through  faith  with  Christ,  his 
nature  is  imparted  as  the  altar  imparts  its  holiness 
to  whatexrer  touches  it,  and  he  thus  becomes  ' '  the 
Lord  our  righteousness,"  or  "the  end  of  the  law 
for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth." 

In  the  face  of  these  facts  we  see  clearly  enough 
that  what  is  called  atonement  of  Christ  is  essentially 
more  than  a  mere  exemplification  of  the  highest 
human  virtue,  the  bare  following  of  which,  some 
suppose  is  sufficient  to  save  humanity.  It  is  Christ 
himself  that  saves,  and  not  his  mere  example. 

We  also  clearly  see  the  insufficiency  of  repent- 
ance as  a  ground  of  acceptance  with  God,  even  if 
it  was  possible  to  us  without  the  mediation  of 
Christ  and  the  influence  that  comes  from  him. 

All  needed  influence  to  enable  us  to  come  to 
Christ  is  avouched  to  us  through  this  gracious  me- 
diation. 

I  have  previously  said  that  an  atonement  is  nec- 
essary as  an  objective  ground  of  faith,  hope,  etc. 
We  know  both  from  experience  and  observation 
that  the  human  mind  nee.ds  some  object  outside  of 
itself  in  which  to  trust  for  deliverance  from  evils, 
both  subjective  and  objective. 

Every  man,  whatever  may  be  his  creed,  is  sensible 
of  his  dependence  on  some  thing  above  and  mightier 
than  himself — is  sensible  of  his  responsibilities  to 
such  a  power,  and  feels  the  need  of  propitiating 
that  power.  If  he  has  not  put  out  his  eyes  with 
his  sophistries,  and  seared  his  conscience  with  his 
vices,  he  has  a  sense  of  his  sin  and  condemnation, 
from  which  he  can  not  free  himself.  He  feels  that 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  321 

he  has  offended  against  a  power  upon  whom  he  is 
dependent,  and  whom  he  ought  to  propitiate. 

If  I  offend  you  willingly,  I  instinctively  feel  that 
I  ought  to  make  reparation — that  I  really  have  no 
right  to  expect  your  forgiveness  and  favor  unless  I 
make  confession.  This  confession  then  becomes 
an  objective  ground  of  faith  that  you  will  forgive 
me.  But  when  we  believe  that  we  have  sinned 
against  a  righteous  and  omnipotent  God,  who  ab- 
hors all  sin,  we  feel  that  something  must  be  done  to 
secure  his  favor.  But  we  can  not  persuade  ourselves 
that  a  bare  confession  of  our  sins  is  of  itself  a  suf- 
ficient ground  for  believing  that  he  will  forgive. 

We  may  confess  our  sins  with  the  deepest  contri- 
tion, and  yet  have  the  impression  that  something 
more  is  needed.  Hence,  we  often  put  ourselves 
upon  a  sort  of  penance- work  to  propitiate  God. 
Realizing  so  deeply  a  sense  of  our  unworthiness, 
we  feel  as  if  it  would  scarcely  be  less  than  sacrilege 
and  presumption  to  expect  him  to  save  us  in  our 
present  state. 

Seekers  may  remain  in  this  distressing  state  of 
mind  for  years;  nor  can  they  be  relieved  from  it, 
until  they  come  to  recognize  Christ  as  the  all-suffi- 
cient ground  of  pardon  and  acceptance  with  God. 
They  then  rejoice  in  the  freeness  and  fullness  of  his 
gracious  salvation,  regarding  their  own  works  as 
worthless. 
21 


322  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

SECTION  I. — Was  Christ,  as  to  his  humanity, 
bound  by  the  same  divine  law  that  binds  all  other 
men  to  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  and  their  neigh- 
bors as  themselves,  and  did  he  literally  fulfill  all 
the  requirements  of  that  law  ? 

I  answer  that  Christ  came  under  this  law  just  as 
all  others  come  under  it.  He  was  ' '  born  under  the 
law,  that  he  might  redeem  them  which  were  under 
the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of 
sons"  (Gal.  iv.  4,  5).  As  God,  he  was  not  under 
law  at  all.  Who  can  impose  law  upon  God  ?  That 
Christ,  as  God,  came  under  some  sort  of  compact 
or  covenant  stipulations  to  redeem  a  part  of  man- 
kind by  penal  substitution,  is  a  pure  theological 
figment,  which  is  as  unscriptural  as  it  is  unreason- 
able. Christ  as  divine  was  the  author  of  law,  and 
not  a  subject.  As  human,  he  came  under  law  as 
do  all  other  men — was  born  under  the  law. 

Being  without  sin,  he  was  able  to  fulfill  this  law 
which  no  other  man,  born  of  woman,  could  do. 

Note. — How  Christ,  born  of  a  sinful  woman, 
could  be  without  sin,  is  a  question  which  has  re- 
ceived various  and  conflicting  answers.  I  have 
seen  none  that  were  free  from  objections. 

The  true  solution,  I  think,  is  found  in  the  perfect 
passivity  of  the  Virgin  Mother.  There  can  be  no 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  323 

sinfulness  without  voluntariness,  and  no  propaga- 
tion of  a  sinful  nature  when  there  is  no  volition, 
connected  with  the  conception.  In  these  respects 
the  virgin  was  as  passive  as  the  dust  of  which 
Adam  was  made.  Hence  Christ,  though  born  of 
a  sinful  woman,  was  himself  without  sin. 

He  came  not  to  destroy  the  law,  but  to  fulfill  it; 
not  to  abrogate,  relax,  or  in  any  way  to  modify  it, 
but  literally  to  meet  all  its  requirements.  He  was 
"obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross." 
More  than  this,  the  law  could  not  require,  and  less 
than  this  could  not  meet  its  demands.  Hence,  he 
did  exactly  what  the  law  required. 

SECTION  II. — Did  Christ,  it  is  often  asked,  obey 
the  law  in  the  place  of  those  for  whom  he  died? 

I  answer  with  the  utmost  decision,  No.  The 
terms  of  the  law  of  themselves  exclude  the  possi- 
bility of  such  an  obedience.  To  this  question, 
however,  many  of  our  most  learned  theologians 
return  an  affirmative  answer.  One  of  the  most 
adroit  defenders  of  substitution  says  (Hodge,  Vol. 
II. ,  p.  494): 

"The  work  of  Christ  was,  therefore,  of  the  nat- 
ure of  a  satisfaction  to  the  demands  of  the  law. 
By  his  obedience  and  suffering,  by  his  whole  right- 
eousness, active  and  passive.  He,  as  our  represent- 
ative and  substitute,  did  and  endured  all  that  the 
law  demands. 

Those,  who  by  faith  receive  this  righteous- 
ness and  trust  upon  it  for  justification,  are  saved; 
and  receive  the  renewing  of  their  whole  nature 
into  the  image  of  God.  Those  who  refuse  to  sub- 
mit to  this  righteousness  of  God,  and  go  about  to 


324  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

establish  their  own  righteousness,  are  left  under  the 
demands  of  the  law;  they  are  required  to  be  free 
from  all  sin,  or  having  sinned,  to  bear  the  pen- 
alty." 

I  will  not  here  attempt  to  refute  all  the  errors 
contained  in  this  quotation;  will  only  briefly  note  a 
few  of  its  incongruities. 

1.  If  Christ  obeyed  the  law  actively  for  himself, 
then  of  course  there  was  no  penalty  to  endure  on 
his  own  account.     For  obedience  of  necessity  ex- 
cludes penalty.     A  man  who  obeys  the  law  is  not 
liable  to  its  penalty. 

2.  If  Christ   did   actively   obey  the  law,  as  otir 
substitute^  then  of  necessity  there  could  be  no  pen- 
alty to  endure  on  our  account ;  for  active  or  precep- 
tive obedience  inevitably  excludes  penalty.     Hence, 
to  assert  that  Christ  obeyed  the  law  in  our  stead,  and 
at  the  same  time,  or  at  any  time,  endured  the  pen- 
alty in  our  stead,  is  to  assert  a  palpable  impossi- 
bility, because  it  makes  him  obey  the  law,  and  yet 
suffer  the  consequences  or  penalty  of  riot  obeying 
it.    Just  as  well  say  a  man  eats,  and  yet  suffers  the 
consequences  of  not  eating;    or,  that  a  man  does 
right,  and  yet  suffers  the  consequences  of  doing 
wrong. 

3.  If  Christ  rendered  an  active  obedience  to  the 
law  in  our  stead,  and  also  rendered  a  passive  obedi- 
ence in  our  stead,  then  he  rendered  a  double  obedi- 
ence in  our  stead.     If  justice   requires  all   this,   it 
requires  more  than  its  due,  and  what,  as  we  have 
just  seen,  is  impossible. 

4.  If  Christ  has  twice  obeyed  the  law  for  us — 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  325 

actively  and  passively — how  happens  it  that  any 
for  whom  he  has  rendered  this  double  obedience 
' '  are  left  under  the  demands  of  the  law  ...  to  bear 
the  penalty  for  themselves  ?  ' ' 

According  to  our  author,  a  two-fold  obedience  is 
rendered  for  all  that  are  saved,  and  a  three-fold  obe- 
dience is  rendered  in  reference  to  those  not  saved 
(if  Christ  died  for  all);  first,  by  Christ's  active  obe- 
dience; secondly,  by  his  passive  obedience;  and 
thirdly,  by  the  passive  obedience  (so  called)  of  the 
sinner  himself.  These  are  only  a  part  of  the  incon- 
gruities contained  in  this  quotation. 

Now,  in  opposition  to  this  and  much  other  high 
authority,  I  affirm  that  Christ  obeyed  the  law  for 
himself — simply  did  what  it  required  him  to  do,  not 
as  a  substitute,  but  as  an  individual  subject.  This 
obedience,  of  course,  relates  both  to  God  and  to  all 
humanity;  or,  it  consisted  in  love  to  God  and  to 
his  neighbor,  so  that  God  is  honored  and  his  neigh- 
bor is  benefited  by  it.  If  I  do  my  whole  duty  to 
my  neighbor  needing  help,  I  thereby  honor  God 
and  become  a  benefactor  to  my  neighbor,  but  I  in 
no  sense  become  his  substitute.  I  do  not  obey  the 
law  in  his  stead,  but  do  my  duty  to  him.  Consider 
the  following  facts : 

i.  The  terms  of  the  law  utterly  exclude  the  pos- 
sibility of  vicarious  obedience.  "Thou  shalt  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart  .  .  .  and  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself  (Luke  x.  27). 

Love  is  what  is  required;  love  is  the  fulfilling  of 
the  law  (Rom.  xiii.  10);  love  to  the  full  extent  of 
ability — with  all  the  heart. 


326  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

If  the  law  required  a  specific  amount  of  obedience 
— a  "half  shekel"  of  silver — then  we  could  con- 
ceive it  possible  for  one  man  to  pay  for  himself,  and 
also  for  a  poor  neighbor.  But  in  this  case  the 
rich  man  would  not  be  a  substitute,  but  a  bene- 
factor. 

But  this  is  manifestly  not  the  nature  of  the  obe- 
dience required.  Obedience  according  to  ability  is 
what  is  demanded. 

This  simple  fact  makes  it  impossible  for  one  to 
obey  in  the  place  of  another.  This  obvious  fact 
excludes  the  possibility  of  any  supererogative  obe- 
dience on  the  part  of  Christ — or  of  obedience  in 
excess  of  his  individual  obligation — which  can  be 
set  to  the  credit  of  the  disobedient.  No  redundance 
or  overflowing  surplus  in  the  case  is  possible.  Ac- 
cording to  ability  is  the  demand. 

Thus  it  is  as  clear  as  light  itself  that  if  Christ's 
ability  to  love  God  and  men  was  a  thousand-fold 
greater  than  that  of  all  other  beings  combined,  it 
can  not  exceed  the  demands  of  the  law. 

This  fact  cuts  up  by  the  root  the  whole  doctrine 
of  supererogatory  or  redundant  obedience  and  the 
scheme  of  substitution  falls  with  it. 

It  brings  no  relief  to  say  that  Christ  was  an  in- 
finite personality,  and  as  such  could  yield  "an 
infinite  suffering"  in  a  finite  time;  for  if  this  ab- 
surd notion  was  true,  still  it  remains  true  that  his 
love,  obedience,  suffering,  or  whatever  the  law 
requires,  can  never  exceed  the  requirements  of  the 
law,  which  is  according  to  ability.  Even  infinite 
ability  can  not  exceed  the  law's  demands. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  327 

And  because  the  law  requires  perpetual  as  well 
as  full  obedience,  he  must  render  this  infinite  obe- 
dience strictly  on  his  own  account  at  every  instant 
through  infinite  duration.  Hence,  we  can  not  fail 
to  see  that  supererogatory  and  vicarious  obedience 
is  an  impossible  thing. 

2.  The  nature  of  the  obedience  required  excludes 
the   idea  of  substitution.     The   law  explicitly  re- 
quires  love,   of  which   external   obedience   is   the 
appropriate  expression.      "This  is  the  love  of  God 
that  ye  keep  his  commandments"  (i  John  v.  3). 

While  mind  remains  mind,  it  will  be  true  that 
one  mind  can  not  love  or  obey  in  the  place  of  an- 
other. Even  if  a  change  of  personalities  was  pos- 
sible, still  one  could  not  love  in  the  place  of 
another;  for  in  every  possible  condition  each  per- 
sonality would  have  its  own  state,  called  love. 

3.  Nor  would  it  be  of  any  conceivable  advantage 
to  have  a  substitute  to  love  or  obey  in  our  stead; 
or   to   do   our   loving   for    us.     On  the    contrary, 
if  such  was  possible,  it  would  be  a  grievous  calam- 
ity instead   of  a  favor;  for  God  has  purposely  so 
constituted  the  human  mind,  and  all  created  minds, 
as  to  make  their  crowning  excellence  and  highest 
blessedness  consist  in  loving.     Not  to  love  is  to  be 
miserable.     This  is  an  admitted  psychological  truth. 
I  suppose  the  chief  difference* between  heaven  and 
hell  is  that  the  former  is  full  of  love,  the  latter  of 
hate.     You  may  love  my  friends  as  much  or  more 
than  I  do,  but  I  am  glad  you  can  not  love  them  in 
my  place.     If  you  should  happen  to  do  so  strange 
a  thing,  you  would  wrong  me  grievously  by  depriv- 


328  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

ing  me  of  the  pleasure  that  comes  from  loving  them 
myself. 

If  any  good  or  pleasure  comes  from  thinking,  or 
from  loving  my  neighbors,  or  from  loving  or  obey- 
ing my  precious  Savior,  I  certainly  do  not  wish  any 
substitute  to  take  these  pleasures  from  me. 

I  ought  to  be  profoundly  grateful  to  the  blessed, 
loving  Christ,  not  for  doing  what  he  did  not  do, 
nor  for  doing  what  he  could  not  do,  nor  for  doing 
what,  if  done,  would  be  the  greatest  of  all  calam- 
ities to  me,  but  for  obeying  the  law  in  his  own 
place — even  unto  death,  arid  being  raised  up  from  the 
dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  and  thus  made  a 
quickening  spirit,  who  can  impart  to  me  his  own 
death  unto  sin  and  life  unto  God,  and  thus  enable 
me  to  love  God  and  my  neighbor  for  myself. 

His  mission  was  not  to  love  God  in  the  place  of 
rebellious  and  miserable  sinners,  and  also  endure  the 
penal  wrath  of  God  in  their  stead,  but  to  enable 
helpless  sinners  to  love  God  for  themselves,  and 
thus  avoid  the  consequences  of  disobedience  by  a 
return  to  obedience  as  a  patient  is  released  from  pain 
by  restoration  to  health. 

4.  If  Christ  as  a  substitute  by  his  active  obedience 
fulfilled  the  law  for  humanity,  and  if  the  atonement 
is  older  than  Adam,  as  it  avowedly  is,  how  was  it 
possible  for  sin  to  'affect  humanity  or  enter  our 
world  at  all  ? 

Christ,  having  from  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
fully  met  by  his  active  obedience  all  the  claims  of 
law  in  the  place  of  humanity,  the  possibility  of  sin 
seems  to  be  effectivelv  excluded;  for  obedience 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  329 

and  disobedience  are  mutually  exclusive  one  of  the 
other. 

But  sin  actually  exists.  It  can  not,  therefore,  be 
true  that  Christ  did  by  his  active  obedience  fulfill 
the  law  in  the  place  of  all  humanity ;  or  even  any 
part  of  it,  for  all  men  are  sinners.  Or,  Christ  having 
perfectly  obeyed  the  law  for  all,  the  law  has  never 
been  disobeyed  at  all,  and  hence,  sin  does  not 
exist.  This  exposes  the  weakness  of  the  theory. 

5.  Again,  if  Christ  suffered  the  penalty  in  the 
place  of  all  men,  then  by  what  principle  of  law 
can  any  be  required  to  suffer  the  penalty  for  them- 
selves ?  I  know  it  is  sometimes  said  that  they  are 
punished  for  not  accepting  Christ. 

But  this  is  contradictory;  for  if  Christ  atoned  for 
all  the  sins  of  humanity,  then  he,  of  course,  atoned 
for  the  sin  of  rejecting  Christ  as  really  as  for  any 
other. 

Now,  I  desire  you  to  examine  for  yourselves 
whether  these  and  all  similar  perplexities  are  not 
effectually  avoided  by  allowing  that  Christ  fulfilled 
the  law  only  in  his  own  place;  and  by  his  sacrificial 
death  and  resurrection  became  a  quickening  spirit, 
who  saves  all  that  obey  him. 

This  view  of  the  subject  enables  us  to  understand 
how  it  is  that  the  sinner  is  strictly  under  law 
and  as  truly  condemned  as  he  could  be,  if  no 
atonement  had  been  made  for  him;  how  it  is  that 
his  justification  is  conditioned  upon  faith,  though 
ample  atonement  has  been  made  for  him;  also,  how 
it  is  that  there  is  no  possibility  of  a  double  obedience 
to  the  law,  and  no  double  penalty;  no  payments  of 


330  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

debts  partly  by  penalty  and  partly  by  dignity; 
no  commutation  of  one  kind  of  penalty  for  an- 
other; no  need  for  a  rule  by  which  to  equate  the 
value  of  penal  suffering  with  the  holy  obedience 
required  by  the  law — or  between  penal  fire  and  rev- 
erential love;  no  necessity  for  the  relaxation  of  law 
claims,  or  acceptillation  of  any  sort;  no  need  for 
asserting  the  unscriptural  and  absurd  doctrine  of 
penal  sacrifices,  or  of  saving  merit  in  a  penal  death, 
or  the  strange  figment  of  passive  and  penal  right- 
eousness. 

SECTION  III. — The  question  is  often  put  by  the- 
ologues,  How  are  we  saved  by  the  mediation  of 
Christ? 

I  will  first  answer  according  to  the  penal  theory, 
and  then  give  a  different  method. 

1.  Adam's  sin  or  guilt  is  imputed  to  his  posterity, 
and  thus  becomes  the  sin  of  humanity. 

2.  This   common   sin   of  humanity  is   in  some 
way  imputed  to  Christ,  and  becomes  really  his  sin 
or  guilt. 

3.  Christ  endured  the  punishment  of  this  sin  and 
all  the  sins  of  the  elect,  and  thus  satisfies  punitive 
justice,  and  by  this  means  creates  a  fund  of  right- 
eousness—  penal    righteousness   it   would   seem — 
which  takes  away  all  liability  to  punishment  from 
those  for  whom  he  suffered — keeps  them  out  of  ge- 
henna,  but  does  not  give  a  qualification  for  heaven. 

4.  Christ  obeyed  the  law  preceptively,  or  by  act- 
ive obedience,  and  this  gives  a  legal  title  to  heaven, 
but  no  qualification,  but  insures  such  qualification 
before  or  at  death. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  331 

5.  This  complex  righteousness   is  imputed,  ac- 
cording to  some,  to  all  for  whom  Christ  died;  ac- 
cording to  others,  to  all  that  believe  in  Christ. 

6.  According  to  most  limitarians,  all  for  whom 
Christ  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  are  uncondi- 
tionally regenerated,    faith   and   repentance   being 
the  natural  and  necessary  consequence  of  this  re- 
generation.    Hence,  all  such  are  justified  by  the 
imputed  righteousness  of  Christ. 

According  to  libertarians,  all  that  believe  in 
Christ  are  justified  by  this  imputation  'unto  them, 
and  being  thus  justified  are  regenerated  and  saved. 

A  briefer  statement  is  as  follows:  The  sin  of 
Adam  is  imputed  to  humanity;  the  sin  of  humani- 
ty is  imputed  to  Christ;  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
is  imputed  to  those  for  whom  he  died. 

This  seems  plausible,  because  of  its  simplicity. 
This  plausibility,  however,  arises  in  part  out  of 
ambiguity  of  terms,  rather  than  out  of  a  real  har- 
mony of  the  facts  involved. 

i.  The  word  impute  is  ambiguous  and  deceptive. 
It  sometimes  means  to  attribute  to  a  person  what 
is  real,  as  to  attribute  goodness  to  God;  sometimes 
to  attribute  what  is  not  real,  as  the  Jews  attributed 
to  Christ  a  devil.  Now  the  word  impute  is  used  in 
both  these  radically  different  senses  in  the  above 
given  plausible  statement.  The  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin  to  humanity,  and  that  of  humanity  to 
Christ  are  held  to  be  intensely  real,  and  not  in  any 
sense  ideal;  but  the  imputation  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness to  men  is  held  to  be  not  real  but  ideal — 
that  is,  Christ's  righteousness  does  not  make  those 


332  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

to  whom  it  is  imputed  really,  but  only  putatively 
righteous.  Hence,  God  deals  with  them  not  as 
really  righteous,  but  u  as  if  they  were  so." 

This  reduces  the  righteousness  or  justification  of 
those  to  whom  the  imputation  is  made  to  a  pure 
legal  fiction,  having  no  necessary  corresponding 
moral  state  of  the  mind  or  heart. 

This,  I  think,  is  not  the  Bible  view  of  the  sub- 
ject. 

2.  This  subordinates  the  moral  to  the  legal,  the 
greater  to  the  less.     It  proceeds  on  the  assumption 
that  man  is  corrupt  because  he  is  condemned,  and 
not   condemned   because  he   is   corrupt,  which   is 
alike  contrary  to  the  Bible  and  to  the  order  of  nat- 
ure. 

According  to  the  theory,  the  work  of  reconciling 
men  to  God  begins  in  the  sphere  of  law,  and  works 
from  the  outer  to  the  inner — or  from  forensic  justi- 
fication to  regeneration.  The  reverse  process  is 
true.  (Rom.  viii.  28-30.) 

It  seems  proper  here  to  say,  that  in  this  method 
of  applying  the  atonement  to  the  individual,  as  it 
is  expressed,  the  penal  theory  is  consistent  with  it- 
self. In  fact  this  method  of  saving  the  individual 
seems  to  be  a  necessary  theological  correlate  of  the 
theory  itself. 

3.  This  method  of  justifying  and  saving  the  indi- 
vidual deals  with  pure  abstractions  as  if  they  were 
veritable  realities.     It  conceives  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  as  if  it  was  something  achieved,  or 
wrought  out  by  Christ,  and,  hence,  as  an  entitive 
product,  distinct  from  Christ  as  is  a  piece  of  cloth 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  333 

distinct  from  the  cloth  maker,  with  which  one  may 
be  clothed,  or  as  a  sum  of  money  which  may  be  set 
by  one  party  to  the  credit  of  another.  This  is  un- 
adulterated realism. 

We  often  deceive  ourselves  by  the  use  of  ab- 
stract terms,  such  as  virtue,  vice,  sin,  righteous- 
ness, etc. ,  assuming  them  to  be  some  kind  of  enti- 
ties, and  not  the  'mere  attributes  or  qualities  of 
things. 

But,  we  should  remember  that  righteousness,  like 
sin,  is  an  abstract  term,  which  we  use  to  express 
our  conception  of  a  quality  of  a  moral  agent,  and 
not  of  something  having  existence  independent  of 
such  agent. 

Hence,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  sin,  apart 
from  a  sinful  mind.  So  it  is  of  the  righteousness 
or  merit  of  Christ.  It  has  no  such  existence  as  a 
piece  of  cloth  or  bank  deposit.  It  exists  only  as  a 
quality  or  attribute  of  Christ,  If  Christ  were  to 
cease  to  be,  his  righteousness  would  also  cease  to 
be,  for  a  quality  can  not  exist  independently  of  the 
entity  of  which  it  is  a  quality. 

When  we  justify  the  individual,  therefore,  by  im- 
puting to  him  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  as  some- 
thing different  from  Christ,  we  justify  him  by  a 
pure  abstraction  to  which  there  is  no  corresponding 
reality. 

The  very  first  thing  necessary  in  order  to  estab- 
lish this  mode  of  justification  is  to  prove  beyond 
th£  possibility  of  doubt  that  realism  is  true,  or  that 
righteousness,  sin,  etc. ,  do  exist  as  entities  apart 
from  the  "agents  which  originate  them. 


334  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

It  may,  or  may  not,  surprise  you  when  I  affirm 
without  qualification  that  there  is  absolutely  no 
such  thing  as  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  or  merit 
or  holiness  of  Christ,  apart  from  the  living  Christ 
himself. 

Such  expressions  mean  only  the  righteous,  the 
meritorious,  the  holy  Christ.  The  righteousness 
of  Christ  and  the  righteous  Christ  are  equivalent 
expressions — mean  precisely  the  same  thing — the 
first  being  the  abstract,  and  the  second  the  concrete 
form  of  the  same  idea. 

The  righteousness  then  which  justifies  is  not 
something  wrought  out  or  fabricated  by  Christ 
which,  apart  from  Christ,  is  imputed  to  us,  or  set 
to  our  credit,  because  of  which  we  are  treated 
as  if  we  were  righteous,  while,  in  fact  we  are  not. 

The  plan  of  salvation  does  not  rest  upon  realism; 
nor  does  it  deal  in  shams  or  legal  fictions.  Nor  is 
it  an  immense  commercial  institution,  having  as  its 
basis  an  infinite  fund  of  righteousness  or  merit, 
purchased  by  the  penal  death  of  an  infinite  person- 
ality, which  has  been  on  deposit,  in  some  inconceiv- 
able part  of  the  moral  government,  from  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world,  to  be  set  to  the  credit  of  a 
select  portion  of  mankind  of  all  nations  and  all 
ages,  whose  salvation  is  infallibly  insured  by  this 
deposit  made  in  their  individual  and  special 
interest. 

On  the  contrary,  Christianity  or  the  gospel  is  a 
divine  power — God  in  Christ 'reconciling  the  world 
unto  himself.  Hence,  it  is  not  what  he  did  eight- 
een hundred  years  ago,  or  from  the  foundation  of 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  335 

the  world,  that  saves  men,  but  what  the  living 
Christ  does  now  that  saves  men.  The  bare  making 
of  the  brazen  serpent  healed  none,  but  made  the 
healing  possible  to  all,  inevitable  to  none,  but  sure 
to  every  one  that  looked  upon  it. 

What  you  are  now  doing  does  not  persuade  sin- 
ners to  come  to  Christ,  but  will  enable  you  to  per- 
suade them  to  come  to  him.  Preparation  to  do  a 
thing  and  the  doing  of  it,  are  certainly  different 
things. 

So,  while  Christ's  death  and  resurrection  of 
themselves  save  none  nor  render  the  salvation  of 
any  necessary,  they  make  him  the  Savior  of  all 
men,  especially  of  those  that  believe,  (i  Tim. 
iv.  10.) 

Hence,  we  are  never  commanded  to  trust  in 
Christ's  sufferings,  or  in  his  blood,  or  in  his  death, 
but  in  Christ  himself. 

Paul  says:  uWe  both  labor  and  suffer  reproach 
because  we  trust  in  the  living  God,  who  is  the 
Savior  of  all  men,  especially  of  those  that  be- 
lieve." 

Paul  did  not  say  to  the  jailer,  "  Believe  in  what 
Christ  has  done  and  suffered;"  but,  "Believe  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shall  be  saved." 

On  the  contrary,  the  substitutionary  scheme  re- 
quires us  to  believe  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  a 
"penal  satisfaction  to  justice,"  and  that  it  necessi- 
tates the  salvation  of  all  for  whom  Christ  suffered; 
or,  that  it  is  his  death  that  satisfies  justice  and  ex- 
piates guilt,  and  insures  salvation.  Hence,  a  dead 
or  unrisen  Christ  would  be  as  truly  a  Savior  as  a 


336  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

risen  Christ.  We  know  that  a  title  deed  is  as 
valid  after  the  death  of  the  author  as  before  that 
death. 

The  validity  of  a  legal  obligation  depends  in  no 
sense  upon  the  survival  of  either  party.  If  the 
death  of  Christ  expiates  human  guilt,  by  satisfying 
justice,  and  brings  God  under  obligation  to  regen- 
erate and  save,  then  the  resurrection  of  Christ  can 
have  no  effect  upon  the  question  of  the  sinner's  sal- 
vation. 

According  to  the  theory,  justice  is  satisfied,  the 
sinner's  guilt  expiated,  and  his  salvation  assured, 
whether  Christ  is  risen  from  the  dead  or  not. 

Christ,  it  would  seem,  rose  from  the  dead  on  his 
own  account,  and  in  no  respect  in  the  interest  of 
the  sinner's  justification  and  regeneration.  Not 
even  for  their  resurrection  from  the  dead  are  the 
elect  indebted  to  a  risen  Christ,  for  there  is  to  be  a 
resurrection  of  the  unjust,  or  reprobate,  as  truly  as 
of  the  just  or  elect.  Of  course  the  substitutionist 
would  not  be  willing  to  admit  these  conclusions, 
nor  do  I  charge  him  with  believing  them.  But  they 
seem  to  be  logically  involved  in  the  fundamental 
principles  of  his  theory. 

But,  according  to  the  Bible,  the  death  and  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  of  themselves  save  none,  but 
were  the  indispensable  means  by  which  he  became 
the  Savior  of  those  that  believe. 

Had  he  not  risen  from  the  dead,  he  would  be  no 
Savior  at  all.  Hence,  the  immense  importance 
that  the  Bible  attaches  to  his  resurrection.  Paul 
sets  this  fact  in  a  very  strong  light.  He  says : 


NON-PENAL  THEORY. 


337 


(Rom.  iv.  25):  "He  was  delivered  for  our  offenses, 
and  was  raised  again  for  our  justification." 

(i  Cor.  xv.  14-17):  If  "Christ  be  not  risen,  then 
is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your  faith  is  also  vain, 
and  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins." 

Hence,  a  living  Christ  alone  can  save. 

This  fact  that  it  is  Christ  and  not  his  death  that 
saves  sinners,  cuts  the  whole  substitutionary  scheme 
out  of  root. 

Having  indicated  what  are  to  me  formidable 
objections  to  the  common  method  of  bringing  the 
sinner  into  a  state  of  justification,  I  will  now  briefly 
outline  a  different  method,  which  I  think  is  more 
in  accordance  with  the  Bible,  human  reason,  and 
Christian  experience. 

(i)  Adam,  having  corrupted  his  moral  nature  by 
his  disobedience,  transmitted  this  corrupted  nature 
by  natural  heredity  to  his  posterity. 

His  sinful  act  is  not  in  any  proper  sense  imputed 
to  us,  but  his  vitiated  moral  nature  is  transmitted 
to  us  by  a  natural  process,  as  is  his  animal  and  in- 
tellectual nature.  This  natal  depravity  is  spiritual 
death,  and  creates  the  necessity  for  the  special 
mediation  of  the  God- Man,  who,  by  his  obedience 
unto  death,  and  his  resurrection,  becomes  a  quick- 
ening spirit,  who  imparts  his  own  holy  nature  and 
righteousness  to  those  that  trust  in  him  for  salva- 
tion. 

Hence,  we  are  expressly  informed  (Jer.  xxiii.  6) 
that  he  should  be  "  called  the  Lord  our  righteous- 
nes^T"  We  can  not,  without  very  largely  supple- 
menting this  text,  get  out  of  it  the  idea  of  substi- 

22 


338  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

tution  with  double  imputation,  etc.  The  natural 
inference  seems  to  be  that  the  Lord  is  just  simply 
our  righteousness,  and  this  is  what  I  assert.  We 
have  a  similar  statement  (i  Cor.  i.  30): 

' '  But  of  him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  was 
made  unto  us  wisdom  from  God,  and  righteousness, 
and  sanctification,  and  redemption." 

All  these  things  are  related  to  us  and  come  to  us 
in  the  same  way.  Hence,  if  righteousness  is  im- 
puted to  us,  sanctification  and  redemption  are  also 
imputed  to  us,  and  if  we  are  only  accounted  and 
treated  as  righteous,  while  we  are  not  really  so, 
then  it  follows  that  we  are  not  really  sanctified  and 
redeemed  or  saved,  but  only  treated  as  if  we  were 
so. 

It  is  also  said  (2  Cor.  v.  21): 

' '  Him  who  knew  no  sin,  he  made  to  be  sin  (a  sin- 
offering)  on  our  behalf,  that  we  might  become  the 
righteousness  of  God  in  him." 

In  what  sense  or  how  are  we  made  the  righteous- 
ness of  God?  The  word  righteousness  is  an  ab- 
stract word,  and  the  expression,  "made  the  right- 
eousness of  God  in  him,"  is  equivalent  to  being 
made  partakers  of  God's  righteousness  by  virtue 
of  our  union  with  Christ,  or  because  we  are  "in 
him." 

Three  lessons  are  distinctly  taught : 

(1)  That  Christ  knew  no  sin,   personal  or  im- 
puted. 

(2)  That  he  was  made  or  became  a  sin-offering — 
then,  of  course,  not  a  penal  sacrifice. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  339 

(3)  That  those  in  him  become  partakers  of  ' '  the 
righteousness  (of  God)  which  is  of  faith."  (Rom. 
ifi.  22;  ix.  30;  x.  6.) 

Hence,  it  is  clear  that  we  are  justified,  made 
righteous,  and  saved  by  having  the  righteousness 
of  God,  received  by  faith,  or  by  being  in  Christ. 

The  uniform  teaching  of  the  Bible  is  that  we  are 
made  righteous  by  partaking  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness, or  by  being  in  him  who  is  our  righteousness. 

If  this  is  true,  then  justification  or  righteousness 
is  not  something  imposed  upon  us  from  without  by 
imputation,  but  is  the  divinely-appointed  sequence 
of  ethical  union  with  Christ,  or  being  made  one 
with  Christ. 

If  this  is  true,  then  the  righteousness  of  the 
believer  is  not  ideal,  but  real.  Certainly  it  is  not 
a  self-originated,  but  a  derived  righteousness,  but 
none  the  less  real  on  this  account.  The  magnetism 
of  the  mariner's  compass  is  not  primal,  but  derived 
from  the  natural  magnet,  but  is  real,  nevertheless. 
The  life  of  the  ingrafted  branch  is  real,  though 
derived  from  the  stock  with  which  it  is  united, 
and  the  life  of  one  is  the  life  of  the  other.  This 
will  more  fully  appear  from  what  follows. 

SECTION  IV. — But  it  is  asked,  how  is  this  unifi- 
cation with  Christ  brought  aboiit,  or  secured? 

This  is  a  vital  question,  and  merits  some  special 
attention.  I  answer,  it  is  brought  about  "through 
sanct^fication  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth." 

Note. — I  do  not  use  the  word  sanctification  in  the 
sense  of  morah  purity  or  sinlessness,  but  in  the  strict 


340  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

Bible  sense,  viz. :  separateness  from  worldliness  and 
appropriation  to  God  and  sacred  uses. 

Sauctification  on  the  human  side  is  the  voluntary 
element  of  saving  faith.  By  this  mental  act  we 
take  hold  on  Christ,  or  give  ourselves  to  him,  or  lay 
ourselves  upon  him  as  our  altar,  or  mercy-seat. 
But  this  act  on  our  part  is  not  the  real  sanctifica- 
tion  of  the  Spirit,  or  what  is  imparted  by  the  quick- 
ening spirit,  but  is  only  the  means,  or  antecedent, 
upon  which  this  sanctification  is  conditioned.  The 
conditioning  act  is  in  a  sense  ours;  the  divinely- 
ordained  sequent  of  this  act  is  the  sanctification 
that  comes  from  Christ,  our  altar,  or  mercy-seat, 
which  sanctifies  whatever  touches  it,  and  renders  it 
acceptable  to  God.  The  divinely-ordained  order,  as 
we  have  seen,  is  sacrifice,  sanctification,  and  accept- 
ance with  God  (Rom.  xii.  i;  Heb.  ix.  13). 

The  process  is  suitably  illustrated  by  the  taberna- 
cle service. 

An  important  difference  between  the  old  and  the 
"New  and  living  way"  which  Christ  has  opened 
up  for  us,  is  that  in  the  latter  no  mediating  human 
priest  is  required. 

Christ,  having  suffered  without  the  gate,  that  he 
might  sanctify  the  people  (all  humanity)  with  his 
blood,  every  man  becomes  his  own  priest  in  such  a 
sense  that  he  may  lay  himself  and  all  his  offerings 
upon  Christ,  his  mercy-seat,  by  whom  he  is  sancti- 
fied and  made  partaker  of  Christ's  holiness  (Heb. 
xii.  10;  i  Cor.  ix.  10);  is  made  partaker  of  Christ, 
or  with  Christ  (Heb.  iii.  14);  is  made  partaker  of 
the  divine  nature  (2  Peter  i.  4). 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  341 

In  these  texts  we  are  expressly  told  that  those 
who  give  themselves  to  Christ,  or  trust  in  Christ, 
are  made  partakers  of  the  altar  that  sanctifies  all 
that  touches  it;  or  are  made  partakers  of  Christ's 
sanctification;  partakers  of  the  divine  nature — of 
Christ  himself. 

Now,  in  this  impartation  of  Christ's  holiness, 
Christ's  righteousness,  Christ's  nature,  and  of 
Christ  himself  to  those  who  consecrate  themselves 
trustingly  to  him,  we  can  scarcely  fail  to  see  how 
we  become  partakers  of  Christ's  holiness,  and  how 
Christ  becomes  the  "Lord  our  righteousness,"  and 
' '  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one 
that  believe th"  (Rom.  x.  4),  how  believers  become 
dead  to  sin  and  have  their  lives  hid  with  Christ  in 
God  (Col.  iii.  3),  how  "ye  are  not  under  the  law, 
but  under  grace  ''  (Rom.  vi.  14),  and  in  fine,  how 
Christ  becomes  the  "  author  of  eternal  salvation  to 
all  them  that  obey  him"  (Heb.  v.  9). 

This  sanctification,  insured  by  faith,  or  spiritual 
contact  with  Christ,  is  illustrated  by  the  marital 
relation  in  which  twain  are  made  one. 

Paul  teaches  (i  Cor.  vii.  14)  that  the  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified  by  the  (believing)  wife,  and 
the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband; 
else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they 
holy."  (This,  of  course,  is  ritual  sanctification.) 
Unification  by  the  marital  relation,  in  which  two 
become  one,  is  a  favorite  mode  of  illustration  by 
the  sacred  writers.  Christ  is  represented  as  the 
Bridegroom  and  the  Church — believers — as  the  bride, 
and  they  are  ethically  and  in  law  recognized  as  one 


342  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

and  identical.     Christ  recognizes  this  union  when 
.he  says,  "because  I  live  ye  shall  live  also1'  (John 
xiv.  19). 

Paul  pronounces  this  union  between  Christ  and 
believers  a  great  mystery.  Nevertheless,  he  affirms 
it  to  be  real,  and  the  ground  of  salvation  (Eph.  v. 

22-33)- 

In  this  vital  union,  the  spiritual  life  of  the  be- 
liever is  represented  as  coming  wholly  from  Christ, 
as  illustrated  by  the  dependence  of  the  branch  upon 
the  vine  whence  it  derives  its  life. 

Also,  by  the  life  and  sustenance  of  the  body  upon 
the  nutritious  material  upon  which  it  feeds.  "  Ex- 
cept ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Sou  of  man  and  drink 
his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.  Whoso  eateth 
my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  hath  eternal  life  " 
(John  vi.  53,  54).  The  scion  lives  by  partaking  of 
the  flesh  and  blood,  so  to 'speak,  of  the  stock  into 
which  it  is  ingrafted. 

In  the  light  of  Scripture  facts,  we  readily  see 
how  believers  are  put  into  Christ  and  sanctified  by 
that  relation,  or  made  partakers  of  his  holiness. 

Now,  I  wish  you  to  make  a  special  note  of  the 
fact  that  sanctification  and  righteousness,  though 
essentially  distinct,  are,  nevertheless,  absolutely 
inseparable.  They  are,  in  fact,  simply  different 
aspects  of  the  same  event. 

Paul  so  connects  them  (i  Cor.  i.  30): 

"Of  him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  is  made 
unto  us  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification,  and 
redemption. ' ' 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  343 

Hence,  to  affirm  one  of  these  things,  as  the  result 
of  being  in  Christ,  is  by  consequence  to  affirm  all. 
Hence,  it  is  plain  that  the  sinner,  in  being  united 
to  Christ  by  faith,  is  made  partaker  of  Christ's 
sanctification  and  righteousness. 

If  Christ  obeyed  the  law  in  his  own  place,  and 
not  in  the  place  of  others,  how  could  this  perfect 
personal  obedience  avail  for  the  salvation  of 
others  ? 

The  persistency  with  which  this  question  is  put 
betrays  the  impression  that  somehow  the  obedience 
of  Christ  constituted  an  immense  fund  of  merit 
apart  and  distinct  from  Christ  himself,  which  is  set 
to  the  credit  of  individuals  as  occasion  requires. 
The  following  seems  to  be  a  sufficient  answer: 

Suppose  it  should  be  asked:  If  Adam  disobeyed 
the  law  on  his  own  account,  how  could  his  personal 
disobedience  or  unrighteousness  involve  others  .in 
unrighteousness  ?  Did  his  act  of  disobedience  cre- 
ate an  immense  fund  of  unrighteousness,  a  definite 
portion  of  which  is  charged  up  against  each  one  of 
his  posterity  ? 

This  is  an  intensely  realistic  view  of  the  subject 
It  assumes  the  existence  of  sin  or  unrighteousness 
as  possible,  independent  of  a  sinful  mind,  and 
which  somehow  becomes  a  possession  of  the  infant 
mind  independently  of  the  law  of  heredity.  Hence, 
that  a  corrupt  nature  is  comiminicated  to  such  a 
mind,  both  by  a  natural  and  a  supernatural  provi- 
dence or  process. 

A  more  simple,  a  more  rational,  and,  withal,  a 
more  scriptural  view  is,  that  the  first  Adam  did,  by 


344  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

disobedience,  corrupt  his  moral  nature,  and  did  im- 
part that  corrupted  nature  to  his  posterity  by  the 
divinely- established  law  of  heredity,  just  as  he 
transmitted  his  other  natural  characteristics. 

Now,  if  the  first  Adam  did  actually  transmit  his 
personally  unrighteous  nature  or  spiritual  death  by 
natural  generation  only,  then  are  we  not  required  by 
the  typal  relation  between  the  first  and  the  second 
Adam  to  believe  that  the  latter  does  by  regenera- 
tion actually  transmit  his  own  personal  righteous- 
ness to  all  that  believe  in  him? 

If  the  spiritual  death  of  the  first  Adam,  who  is 
of  the  earth  earthy,  or  natural,  could  be  actually 
transmitted  by  generation,  why  should  not  the  spir- 
itual life  of  the  second  Adam,  who  is  the  Lord  from 
heaven,  and  the  ' '  life-giving  spirit, ' '  be  imparted 
to  those  who  obey  him  ?  This  is  possible,  reasona- 
ble, and  biblical. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  345 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

SECTION  I. — Sufficiency  and  redundancy  of  merit 
in  Christ. 

Is  there  a  bare  sufficiency,  or  a  redundancy  of 
merit  in  Christ  ? 

This  question  has  been  much  debated  by  substi- 
tutionists,  but  no  definite  answer  has  been  reached. 
To  those  holding  the  theory,  the  question  seems 
pertinent  and  important.  To  those  rejecting  the 
theory  it  is  about  equivalent  to  asking  whether 
God  has  too  much  or  too  little  power  to  govern  the 
world. 

The  prevailing  notion  seems  to  be  that  Christ's 
sufferings  were  infinite,  and,  therefore,  more  than 
an  offset  to  the  demerit  of  humanity,  which  is  less 
than  infinite.  Still  his  merit  is  not  available  to  all 
because  not  intended  for  all. 

It  seems  proper  to  say,  that  if  there  is  any  merit 
in  penal  suffering,  then  of  course  the  degree  of  pe- 
nal suffering  ought  to  exactly  equal  the  sufferings 
due  to  those  for  whom  he  suffered — no  more,  no 
less. 

But  why  should  Christ  endure  infinite  suffering 
to  neutralize  a  finite  measure  of  guilt  ?  Why  suffer 
more  than  a  bare  sufficiency  ?  By  enduring  infinite 
suffering  he  rendered  to  justice  more  than  what  was 
due;  and  the  excess  was  equal  to  the  difference  be- 


346  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

tween  finity  and  infinity.  Is  it  not  as  grievous  an 
injustice  to  receive  too  much  as  too  little? 

The  difference  between  finity  and  infinity  is,  I 
should  say,  itself  infinite.  Now,  would  it  not  be  a 
less  wrong  for  justice  to  remit  a  finite  degree  of  de- 
merit, than  to  receive  an  infinite  amount  of  suf- 
fering ? 

This  would  save  all  the  world  with  less  injustice 
than  is  done  in  rendering  to  justice  an  infinite  de- 
gree of  suffering  for  finite  demerit. 

Again,  it  is  manifestly  impossible  for  Christ,  even 
if  he  suffered  as  an  infinite  personality,  to  endure 
infinite  suffering  "  in  finite  time."  This  he  could 
not  do,  unless  his  sufferings  were  absolutely  with- 
out beginning  and  without  end.  Suffering  may  be 
without  end,  but  is  not  infinite  unless  it  also  is 
without  beginning.  It  is  no  relief  to  say  that  suf- 
fering may  be  limited  as  to  time,  but  infinite  in 
degree;  for  the  infinite  admits  of  no  limitations. 

This  view  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  puts  the 
divine  nature  under  the  penalty  of  the  divine  law 
which  assumes  that  God  punished  himself.  Penal- 
ists  are  driven  into  these  and  a  host  of  other  absurd- 
ities by  the  unscriptural  assumption  that  propitia- 
tion consists  in  suffering  as  such,  and  not  in  obedi- 
ence unto  death. 

To  support  this  egregious  error,  the  text,  "with- 
out shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission ' '  (Heb. 
ix.  22),  is  often  quoted.  To  use  this  text  for  this 
purpose  is  a  palpable  perversion  of  its  terms,  which 
sets  it  in  array  against  its  context.  The  text  does 
not  say  nor  imply  that  without  penal  suffering 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  347 

there  is  no  remission,  as  penaljsts  understand  it. 
The  text  means  just  what  it  says.  The  life  is  in 
the  blood.  To  shed  the  blood  is  to  give  the  life,  or 
constcrate  it  to  God,  without  which  there  is  abso- 
lutely no  remission  of  sin.  The  context  and  the 
terms  of  the  text  itself  attribute  no  efficacy  to  suf- 
fering as  such,  but  attribute  all  efficacy  to  the  blood, 
or  the  surrender  of  the  life  to  God. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  pertinency  in  questions 
concerning  the  degree  of  Christ's  sufferings,  as  to 
whether  they  were  finite  or  infinite,  for,  as  I  have 
often  said,  there  is  absolutely  no  merit  in  penalty  of 
any  kind. 

We  might  just  as  pertinently  perplex  our- 
selves with  the  impracticable  question  as  to  how 
much  suffering  a  physician  must  endure  to  give 
him  the  right  to  cure  his  patient;  or  how  much 
suffering  a  father  must  experience  to  give  him  the 
right  to  reform  and  save  a  fallen  child. 

It  is  not  a  question  of  right  acquired  by  substitu- 
tionary  suffering  but  a  question  of  power  to  adapt 
means  to  given  ends. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  limit  to  the  saving  power 
of  Christ,  or  of  God  in  Christ,  any  more  than  there 
is  a  limit  to  divine  power  in  nature.  Though  this 
saving  power  or  righteousness  may  be  imparted  to 
millions  upon  millions,  it  can  never  become  less. 

If  humanity  continues  to,be  propagated  for  mill- 
ions of  centuries,  Adamic  depravity  will  continue 
to  involve  all  in  sinfulness;  for  it  is  not  an  entity 
in  itself  capable  of  exhaustion,  but  a  quality  in  hu- 
manity which  is  necessarily  coeval  with  humanity. 


348  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

So  it  is  of  the  saving  righteousness  of  Christ.  It 
is  not  a  fund  of  merit,  finite  or  infinite,  nor  the 
equivalent  of  penal,  sufferings,  finite  or  infinite, 
which  can  be  increased  or  diminished,  but  is  sim- 
ply a  divine  power  which  is  capable  neither  of  in- 
crease nor  decrease. 

We  have  just  as  much  authority  for  limiting 
God's  creative  power  in  the  physical  world  as  we 
have  for  limiting  his  saving  power  in  Christ.  In- 
stead of  being  like  an  immense  banking  fund,  to  be 
put  to  the  credit  of  certain  individuals,  and  which 
of  course  may  be  diminished,  it  is  rather  like  knowl- 
edge which  may  be  imparted  to  others  without  any 
decrease. 

If  you  impart  to  others  a  knowledge  of  a  given 
fact,  known  only  to  yourself,  this  importation  does 
not  take  away  nor  diminish  your  knowledge  of  it; 
nor  is  the  quantiim  of  knowledge  increased  in  the 
slightest  degree  by  the  impartation  of  it  to  others. 
The  only  change  produced  by  the  impartation  is, 
that  it  becomes  the  property  of  a  greater  number. 
The  same  knowledge,  you  will  perceive  serves 
equally  well  all  those  to  whom  it  is  imparted. 

Exactly  so  is  it  of  the  sanctification  or  saving 
power  of  Christ.  This  sanctification  and  righteous- 
ness by  impartation  become  the  property  of  all  that 
believe  in  Christ — an  innumerable  multitude.  But 
if  this  righteousness  was  imparted  to  every  human 
being,  it  would  save  all  without  diminishing  his 
own  righteousness. 

This  righteousness,  etc.,  imparted  to  believers, 
makes  them  righteous  exactly  in  the  same  sense  in 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  349 

which  Christ  is  righteous.  It  is  of  course  available 
for  their  acceptance  with  God  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  Christ's  sanctified  humanity  is  accepted  of 
God.  They  being  in  him  are  accepted  because  he 
is  accepted,  are  righteous  because  he  is  righteous. 

He  is  not  their  substitute  in  any  proper  sense. 
Or,  if  he  is,  then  may  we  say  the  parent,  whose  nat- 
ure is  imparted  to  his  child,  is  a  substitute  for  his 
child,  or  a  tree  the  substitute  for  the  fruit  it  bears. 

Hence,  the  sinner  is  not  saved  as  a  bankrupt  is 
saved,  by  having  the  amount  of  his  indebtedness 
set  to  his  credit,  as  substitution  assumes.  This 
plan  does  not  impart  holiness,  but  only  transfers  it, 
as  the  money  of  the  surety  is  actually  taken  from 
him  and  set  to  the  credit  of  his  defaulting  prin- 
cipal. 

This  assumes  that  Christ's  saving  power  is  a  com- 
modity— something  apart  from  himself— just  as  the 
surety's  money  is  a  commodity,  apart  from  the 
surety  himself,  and  has  the  same  commercial  value 
whether  the  surety  lives  or  dies. 

Hence,  according  to  substitution,  an  unrisen 
Christ  is  just  as  adequate  to  save  those  for  whom  he 
died  as  a  risen  Christ. 

According  to  the  theory,  every  sinner  saved 
diminishes  this  fund  of  saving  righteousness  as 
surely  as  the  abstraction  of  a  dollar  from  a  bank 
diminishes  the  sum  on  deposit. 

(It  is  a  scholastic  conceit  that  the  number  re- 
deemed is  exactly  equal  to  the  number  of  the  fallen 
angels.  A  later  authority  affirms  that  the  number 
is  definitely  fixed  beyond  the  possibility  of  increase 


350  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

or  diminution,  and  that  provision  is  made  for  these 
and  no  others.) 

This  is  consistency.  Hence,  the  penal  sufferings 
of  Christ  are  adequate  for  this  number;  no  mo-  £  and 
no  less.  For,  if  there  is  less,  then,  of  course,  some 
elected  to  salvation  will  fail  of  realizing  it;  if  more, 
then  there  will  remain  a  surplus  in  the  treasury  after 
the  last  draft  has  been  honored.  This  is  commend- 
able for  its  consistency,  but  censurable  on  other 
grounds. 

But  what  those  penalists  who  make  a  grand 
flourish  about  the  "infinite  sufferings"  of  Christ 
propose  to  do  with  this  infinite  surplus  merit,  I 
have  not  learned,  nor  can  I  imagine.  A  vast  fund 
of  penal  righteousness  locked  up  in  the  treasury 
vaults  of  the  moral  world,  which,  however  much 
needed  by  reprobates,  can  never  be  put  to  any 
use,  is  a  realistic  conception  that  borders  on  in- 
sanity. 

SECTION  II. — The  typal  relation  between  Adam, 
and  Christ. 

(Rom.  v.  12-20.)  Adam,  \vho  is  called  a  type  of 
Christ,  possessed  in  himself  entire  human  nature, 
and  imparted  that  nature  in  its  completeness  to 
each  of  his  posterity,  without  any  divarication  or 
diminution  of  his  own  complete  humanity.  Hav- 
ing by  disobedience  corrupted  his  moral  nature, 
and  become  spiritually  dead,  he  imparted  that  spirit- 
ual death,  along  with  all  other  characteristics  of  his 
nature,  to  his  posterity. 

Mark,  he  did  not  impart  what  he  did — the  act  of 
sinning — but  the  sinful  nature  acquired  by  sinning. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  351 

This  sinful  nature — spiritual  death — he  transmitted 
by  natural  generation,  just  as  he  transmitted  his 
other  human  characteristics. 

In  like  manner  Christ,  the  second  Adam,  having 
through  obedience  unto  death,  and  being  raised  to 
newness  of  life,  became  a  life-giving  spirit,  or 
source  of  spiritual  life,  imparts  his  spiritual  life 
without  any  divarication  or  diminution  of  his  own 
life  to  all  that  believe  on  him. 

.  As  it  was  not  Adam's  act  of  disobedience  that 
imparted  his  spiritual  death  to  others,  but  the  im- 
partation  of  his  own  corrupt  nature  by  generation; 
so  it  is  not  Christ's  obedience  unto  death  that,  of 
itself,  brings  spiritual  life  unto  others,  but  the  im- 
partation  of  his  own  holy  nature  in  regeneration,  or 
spiritual  birth. 

Hence,  as  the  first  Adam,  by  disobedience,  be- 
came spiritually  dead,  and  imparted  that  death  by 
generation  to  his  posterity;  so  the  second  Adam,  by 
obedience  unto  death,  becomes  a  life-giving  spirit, 
who  imparts  in  regeneration  his  own  spiritual  life 
to  those  that  trust  in  him.  Or,  as  all  men  are  spir- 
itually dead,  because  they  are  partakers  of  the  fall- 
en nature  of  the  first  Adam;  so,  all  believers  are 
made  spiritually  alive,  or  relieved  from  spiritual 
death,  by  becoming  partakers  of  the  spiritual  life  of 
the  second  Adam. 

But  you  may  quite  pertinently  inquire  whether 
this  imparted  righteousness  of  Christ  is  adequate 
to  meet  the  claims  of  the  divine  justice  or  law.  I 
answer,  It  is. 

This  personal  righteousness  of  Christ  imparted 


352  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

to  men  fulfills  the  law  in  their  behalf  to  the  very 
letter;  for  Christ  is  literally  the  end  (fulfillment)  of 
the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  believes. 
(Rom.  x.  4.) 

There  is  absolutely  no  abrogation,  relaxation,  or 
modification  of  the  law.  It  is  literally  fulfilled  in 
every  "jot  and  tittle."  For  if  the  law  could  and 
did  actually  sanction  the  impartation  of  Adam's 
corrupt  nature,  out  of  which  condemnation  comes 
to  all  men,  then  of  sheer  necessity  it  can  and  does 
permit  and  sanction  the  actual — not  fictitious — im- 
partation of  Christ's  righteousness  to  even*  one  that 
believes.  This  is  exactly  the  sense  in  which  Adam 
is  a  type  of  Christ.  (Rom.  v.  12-20.) 

Note  the  analogy,  and  also  the  contrast  between 
them. 

1.  By  Adam  sin  and  spiritual  death  entered  the 
world ;  so  by  Christ  spiritual  life  is  brought  to  light 
in  the  gospel. 

2.  If  by  the  trespass  of  the  one  the  many  died, 
much  more  did  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by 
the  grace  of  the  one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  abound  unto 
the  many. 

3.  The  judgment  came  of  one  (offense)  to  con- 
demnation  (of  all);  but  the  free  gift  came  of  many 
trespasses  unto  justification. 

4.  If  by  the  trespass  of  one  (man)  death  reigned 
by  one,  much   more   shall   they  that  receive   the 
abundance  of  grace -and  of  the  gift  of  righteous- 
ness, reign  in  life  through  one,  even  Jesus  Christ. 

5.  As  through  one  trespass  condemnation  came 
unto  all  men;  even  so  through  one  act  of  righteous- 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  353 

ness  (Christ's  obedience  unto  death)  the  free  gift 
came  unto  all  men  to  justification  of  life. 

6.  As  through  the  one  man's  disobedience  the 
many  were  made  sinners;  even  so  through  the 
obedience  of  the  one  shall  the  many  be  made  right- 
eous. 

In  these  statements  we  have  the  analogy  between 
the  first  and  the  last  Adam.  It  shows  with  suffi- 
cient precision  the  method  by  which  condemna- 
tion comes  upon  all  men  through  one  act  of  diso- 
bedience by  the  first  Adam;  and  the  method  by 
which  justification  (righteousness)  comes  to  believr 
ers  through  the  obedience — not  penal,  but  precep- 
tive— of  the  second  Adam. 

The  two  processes  are  absolutely  identical  in 
kind,  but  reverse  in  order;  the  first  being  from  dis- 
obedience unto  spiritual  death  and  condemnation; 
and  the  second  from  obedience  unto  spiritual  life 
and  justification. 

If  one  process  is  in  the  most  rigid  accord  with 
justice  and  law,  so  is  the  other.  If  one  violates 
justice,  or  law,  or  propriety,  so  does  the  other.  If 
one  is  true,  so  is  the  other.  If  one  is  capable  of 
defense  on  scientific  grounds,  so  is  the  other. 

This  is  Paul's  plan  of  salvation  as  nearly  in  a 
nut-shell  as  I  can  put  it. 

We  may  now  see  exactly  what  is  meant  in 
the  Bible  by  the  remission  or  pardon  of  sin.  It  is 
not  abrogation  or  relaxation  of  law,  nor  the  waiv- 
ing of  penalty,  nor  the  substitution  "of  Christ's 
sufferings  and  death  for  the  penalty  due  to  the  sin- 
ner. "  nor  treating  as  righteous  those  that  are  not 
33 


354  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

really  so;  much  less  is  it  releasing  the  guilty  by  in- 
flicting penalty  upon  an  innocent  substitute. 

On  the  contrary,  it  is  simply  deliverance  from 
penalty  by  deliverance  from  guilt;  just  as  deliver- 
ance from  physical  suffering  is  secured  by  the  re- 
moval of  its  cause. 

To  remove  the  cause  is  to  destroy  the  effect.  To 
take  away  sin  is  to  pardon  it. 

Sin  is  as  truly  a  malady  of  the  soul  as  palsy, 
plague,  or  fever  is  of  the  body.  Of  this  soul-mal- 
ady Christ  is  the  only  healer.  Hence,  he  is  repre- 
sented as  the  great  physician,  who  heals  both  soul 
and  body  (Mark  ii.  17). 

SECTION  III.  — Relation  of  believers  to  the  law. 

Let  it  be  deeply  fixed  in  mind  that  salvation  is 
exclusively  of  grace. 

"By  grace  are  ye  saved,  through  faith,  and  that 
not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God;  not  of 
works,  lest  any  man  should  boast.  For  we  are  his 
workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good 
works,  which  God  hath  foreordained  that  we  should 
walk  in  them"  (Eph.  ii.  8-10). 

Paul  in  this  text  sharply  distinguishes  between 
grace,  faith,  and  works.  These,  though  intimately 
related,  are  specifically  different.  Grace  saves, 
faith  conditions  salvation,  and  good  works  are  the 
appropriate  fruit.  Saving  grace  is  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  imparted  to  every  believer  who  "is 
created  in  Christ  unto  good  works. ' '  Good  works, 
then,  are  the  fruit  of  this  creation  in  Christ  Jesus. 
Of  course  the  fruit  does  not  change  the  character 
of  the  tree  that  bears  it. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  355 

But  you  ask,  is  not  the  Christian's  salvation  con- 
ditioned upon  his  fidelity  or  good  works  ? 

I  think  not.  His  fidelity  is  rather  conditioned 
upon  unification  with  Christ.  "If  a  man  love  me 
he  will  keep  my  word  "  (John  xiv.  23).  As  the  tree 
is,  so  the  fruit. 

But  does  not  the  Bible  say,  "Be  thou  faithful 
unto  death,  and  I  will  give  thee  a  crown  of  life?" 

Certainly  the  crown,  or  reward,  is  conditioned 
upon  fidelity.  But  life  and  a  crown  of  life  are  not 
identical.  Spiritual  life  is  the  gift  of  God.  The 
crown  comes  through  fidelity,  or  good  works.  We 
are  saved  by  grace,  but  rewarded  according  to  our 
works  (2  Cor.  v.  10;  Rev.  xxii.  12). 

Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to 
every  one  that  believeth.  Hence,  those  in  Christ 
are  not  under  the  law  as  a  rule  of  judgment,  but 
under  grace  (Rom.  vi.  14). 

Personal  righteousness,  on  the  contrary,  is  radi- 
cally defective;  is  "as  filthy  rags;"  has  no  power 
to  justify  or  save.  It  does  not  condition  salvation 
at  all;  has  no  power  over  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  either  to  increase  or  diminish  it.  If  it  had 
such  power,  then  it  would  supplement  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ. 

Good  works,  on  the  contrary,  simply  condition1 
the  rewards  of  the  believer;  have  power  over  the 
states  of  the  heart,  and  determine  the  measure  of 
enjoyment  here  and  hereafter. 

We  are  saved  by  grace,  but  rewarded  according 
to  our  works. 


356  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

SECTION  IV. — The  question  is  often  asked,  if 
Adam's  state  of  spiritual  death,  consequent  upon 
his  disobedience,  is  imparted  to  all  men,  why  are  all 
not  delivered  from  that  death  by  the  obedience  of 
Christ?  To  tljis  I  reply : 

1.  If    deliverance    from   spiritual    death    was   as 
irrespective  of  our  voluntary  action  as  is  our  nat- 
ural birth,  then  we  should  expect  all  men  to  be 
delivered  from  spiritual  death  by  the  obedience  of 
Christ. 

But  such  a  method  of  deliverance  would  blot  out 
all  distinction  between  necessity  and  freedom,  and 
destroy  even  the  possibility  of  morality  and  re- 
ligion. 

2.  If  Adam  had  rendered  a  perfect  obedience,  this 
obedience  would  have  saved  none  but  himself;  for 
one   mind  can  not  possibly   obey  or  love  God  in 
the  place  of  another  mind,  and  only  those  that  obey 
are  blessed. 

Hence,  though  we  are  born  in  a  state  of  spiritual 
death  without  our  consent,  yet,  from  the  necessary 
character  of  a  moral  government,  we  can  not  be 
delivered  from  spiritual  death  without  our  consent. 
Hence,  only  those  that  trust  in  Christ  are  saved. 

3.  To  be  born  in  a  state  of  fitness  for  heaven  is 
impossible,    because   it    presupposes   a    concreated 
righteousness,    which    is   a    contradiction.     Adam 
was  not  created  in  such  a  state,  but  only  with  the 
possibility  of  attaining  it. 

To  be  born  incapable  of  sin  is  impossible,  be- 
cause it  denies  to  us  all  freedom,  and  consequently 
all  accountability. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  357 

4.  In  view  of  our  relations  to  the  second  Adam,  it 
is  no  injustice  to  be  born  in  a  state  of  spiritual  death 
on  account  of  the  disobedience  of  the  first  Adam. 

Indeed,  it  is  far  better  to  be  born  ip.  a  state  of 
spiritual  death,  with  effectual  deliverance  at  our 
option,  than  to  be  born,  not  in  a  state  of  spiritual 
death,  but  liable  to  it  at  every  moment,  with  no 
possible  deliverance,  if  it  should  be  incurred. 

5.  None  ever  could  have  been  saved  by  Adam's 
obedience,  even  if  it  had  been  perfect  and  perpet- 
ual.    On  the  contrary,  none  ever  were,  or  will  be 
lost  on  account  of  his  disobedience;  for  the  reason  of 
our  condemnation  is  not  that  we  are  born  in  a  state 
of  spiritual  death,  but  our  voluntary  rejection  of 
spiritual   life  in   Christ  (John   iii.    19).     Millions 
more  of  human  souls,  I  doubt  not,  will  be  saved 
through   the   gracious  mediation   of    Christ,   than 
would  have  been  saved,  if  every  man  was  required 
to  stand  upon  his  personal  obedience. 

This  seems  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  question. 

Christ  himself  the  atonement: 

Christ,  through  obedience  unto  death  and  his 
resurrection,  becomes  the  propitiation,  or  medium, 
through  whom  God,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  operates 
upon  men-,  and  through  whom  men  have  access  to 
God.  "  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  not 
for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  whole  world  "  (i  John 
ii.  2;  iv.  10). 

His  propitiation  has  its  inception  in  his  obedient 
and  sacrificial  death,  and  its  completeness,  or  life- 
giving  power  in  his  ministrations  as  the  living 
Christ. 


358  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

"I  am  (literally)  the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the 
life;  no  one  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by  me" 
(John  xiv.  6),  u  the  new  and  living  way  which  he 
hath  consecrated  for  us  through  ...  his  flesh" 
(Heb.  x.  2o)» 

This  mediation  of  Christ  conditions  and  insures 
all  needed  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  manifesta- 
tion of  which  is  given  to  every  man  to  profit  withal 
(i  Cor.  xii.  7);  or  to  guide  us  into  all  truth  (John 
xvi.  13-16). 

SECTION  V. — The  Scriptures  teach  a  non-penal 
scheme  of  salvation,  and  condemn  substitution. 

Paul's  plan  of  salvation,  as  outlined  above,  is  in 
full  accord  with  the  Scriptures.  Many  texts,  as  we 
have  seen,  teach  it.  Not  one  condemns  it.  It 
harmonizes  with  every  other  correlated  doctrine  of 
the  Bible.  If  this  is  so,  it  must  be  true;  for  this 
is  as  near  demonstration  as  is  possible  in  the  case. 

In  these  respects  it  stands  in  bold  contrast  with 
the  substitutional  theory.  No  text  teaches  this 
scheme,  nor  can  be  made  to  teach  it  without  sup- 
plementation, or  perversion.  Moreover,  it  stands 
in  irreconcilable  conflict  with  hundreds  of  plain 
Bible  texts.  Many  of  these  have  been  noticed — to 
name  -all  would  be  a  needless  labor.  .To  classify 
them  will  answer  as  well. 

It  is  well  known  by  all  that  have  carefully  con- 
sidered the  subject,  that  substitution,  including 
double  imputation  (and  nothing  else  is  substitution 
in  a  theological  sense),  involves  the  doctrines  either 
of  universalism  or  partial  atonement,  also  of  a  par- 
tial influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  "irresistible 


NOX-PEXAL  THEORY.  359 

grace,"  of  unconditionality  in  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion; also,  of  moral  necessity.  These  doctrines 
all  stand  or  fall  together.  If  substitution  in  its 
only  true  or  real  sense  is  true,  then  of  necessity  all 
these  doctrines  are  true.  If  these  are  not  true, 
then  substitution  is  not  true. 

1.  Thus,  if  Christ,  as  a  substitute,  bore  the  pen- 
alty of  the  law  in  the  place  of  all,  then  all  must  be 
saved;  otherwise,  the  penalty  is  twice  inflicted  in 
reference  to  those  not  saved — once  upon  the  substi- 
tute, and  once  upon  the  principal.     Hence,  univer- 
salism  must  be   true.     But  if  universalism  is  not 
true,  it  is  only  because  Christ  did  not  die  for  all, 
for  substitution  infallibly  saves  all  for  whom  Christ 
died.     Hence,  a  partial  atonement. 

2.  Again,  if  penal  atonement  saves  all  for  whom 
it  is  made,  then  the  doctrine  of  irresistible  grace 
must  be  true;    otherwise,   some   for  whom  Christ 
died  might  not  be  saved,  and  the  decree  of  election 
would  consequently  fail. 

3.  Again,  if  substitutionary  atonement  infallibly 
saves  all  for  whom  it  is  made,  then  salvation  is  nec- 
essarily unconditioned  upon  faith,  or  any  thing  else 
possible   to  men.     Their  salvation  is   conditioned 
exclusively  upon  the  death  of  Christ,  as  their  sub- 
stitute.    If  they  repent  or  believe,  it  is  only  because 
"irresistible  grace"  compels  them. 

4.  Again,  if  any  or  all  of  these  doctrines  are  true, 
then  the  doctrine  of  moral  necessity  must  be  true — 
that  is,  men  are  free  to  do  as  they  do,  but  not  other- 
wise, or  free  just  as  the  heart  is  free  to  beat,  but  not 
free  not  to  beat. 


360  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

Hence,  any  text  in  the  Bible  that  condemns  uni- 
versalism,  or  partial  atonement,  or  the  doctrine  of 
"irresistible  grace,"  or  unconditional  salvation,  or 
moral  necessity,  does  of  necessity  condemn  substi- 
tutionary  atonement.  To  affirm  any  one  of  these 
doctrines,  and  to  deny  any  one  of  them,  is  to  affirm 
a  proposition,  and  yet  deny  its  necessary  implications 
or  affiliated  doctrines.  It  consequently  follows: 

1.  That  all  texts  that  deny  universalism,  or  deny 
that  Christ  died  for  a  part  only,  do  by  necessary 
consequence  disprove  substitutionary  atonement. 

2.  That  all  the  texts  that  deny  the  doctrine  of 
"irresistible  grace,"  do  by  necessary  consequence 
disprove  substitution. 

3.  That  all  those  texts  that  teach  that  salvation 
is  conditioned  upon  faith,  or  any  thing  else,  dis- 
prove substitution. 

4.  That  all  the  texts  that  teach  the  doctrine  of 
human  freedom  with  an  alternative,  disprove  sub- 
stitution. 

We  know  that  the  Bible  teaches  that  men  for 
whom  Christ  died  may  be  lost — this  is  explicitly 
taught  (Rom.  xiv.  15;  i  Cor.  viii.  n)  and  implied 
in  numerous  other  texts — then  penal  substitution 
can  not  be  true. 

We  know  the  Bible  teaches  that  men  may  resist 
the  Holy  Spirit,  then  penal  substitution  can  not  be 
true. 

We  know  the  Bible  conditions  salvation  upon 
faith;  then  penal  substitution  can  not  be  true. 

We  know  the  Bible  lays  imperatives  upon  the 
human  will,  and  holds  men  accountable  for  their 
conduct;  then  substitution  can  not  be  true. 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  361 


CHAPTER   XVII. 

SECTION  I. — Libertarian  substitution. 

I  know  there  are  many  who  call  themselves  sub- 
stitutionists  that  reject  utterly  universalism,  limited 
atonement,  unconditionality,  and  moral  necessity. 
All  such  are  involved  in  serious  trouble. 

The  plain  facts  of  the  Bible  can  no  more  be  made 
to  quadrate  with  substitution  in  any  form  than  can 
the  facts  of  astronomy  be  made  to  harmonize  with 
the  Ptolemaic  theory.  If  we  admit  that  Christ  as 
our  substitute  fulfilled  the  law  in  any  sense  by 
active  or  passive  obedience  (so  called),  then  it  fol- 
lows irresistibly  that  the  law,  in  whatever  aspect  he 
fulfilled  it,  can  have  no  further  claims  upon  us,  and 
universalism  follows. 

i.  I  know  it  is  said  that,  though  Christ  fulfilled 
the  law  in  our  place,  yet  God  leaves  us  free  to  ac- 
cept or  reject  his  obedience,  and  that  if  we  by  faith 
receive  it,  we  will  be  saved,  but  if  we  reject  it,  we 
must  be  lost. 

Then  it  follows  that  the  penalties  of  the  law  are 
twice  inflicted  in  relation  to  all  that  are  not  saved 
— once  upon  the  substitute  and  once  upon  the  prin- 
cipal. Hence,  if  penalty  "compensates"  justice 
or  law,  then  it  is  twice  compensated  in  the  case  of 
all  the  lost. 

If  sin  is  a  debt,  and  a  surety  pays  it,  the  creditor 


362  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

has  no  right  to  demand  repayment  of  the  principal. 
If  sin  is  a  crime,  and  the  penalty  has  been  fully 
endured,  it  can  not  be  again  inflicted  upon  substi- 
tute or  principal.  There  is  no  escape  from  these 
plain,  hard  facts. 

2.  Again,  I  have  heard  it  said  that  Christ  obeyed 
the  law  in  our  stead,  and  now  holds  us  under  obli- 
gations to  himself,  and  proposes  to  pardon  us  on 
condition   of    faith   in   him.      This    is    sometimes 
made   quite   plausible;    but   the   calamity   is   that 
Christ,  according  to  this  view,  is  a  substitute  for 
God,  and  not  for  man.      So  the  lawyers  will  tell 
you. 

This  is  not  substitution  at  all,  in  a  theological 
sense.  But  this  method  obviates  no  difficulty,  for 
the  penalty  is  first  endured  by  Christ,  and  then  re- 
inflicted  upon  all  unbelievers. 

3.  Others,    calling    themselves    substitutionists, 
hold  that  the  atonement  is  governmental,  and  not 
strictly  retributive — that  Christ  suffered  to  satisfy 
rectoral  justice,  not  retributive  justice,  or  suffered 
in  the  interest  of  the  moral  government,  and  not  to 
satisfy  divine  justice.     According  to  this  theory, 
the  necessity  of  the  atonement  is  founded  in  the 
exigencies    of    the   moral  government,  and  not  in 
the   divine   nature.     Christ's  death,  consequently, 
is  purely  exemplary,    and  not  expiatory   of  guilt. 
Christ  suffered  to  show  God's  abhorrence  of  sin,  or 
his  respect  for  his  law.     His  sufferings  were  in  the 
interests  of  the  moral  government,   much  as  the 
punishment  of  a  criminal  by  civil  law  is  intended 
by  its  example  to  protect  and  benefit  the  public, 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  363 

and  not  to  gratify  the  governor,  or  actually  repair 
the  injuries  the  criminal  has  done. 

This  theory  is  not  upon  its  face  incompatible 
with  a  general  atonement,  human  freedom,  etc., 
but  is  incumbered  with  other  fatal  objections,  among 
the. more  obvious  of  which  are  the  following: 

1.  Why  should  exemplary  punishment  be  inflicted 
upon  the  innocent,  and  not  upon  the  guilty  ?     If 
some  person  must  suffer  as  an  expression  of  God's 
hatred  of  sin,  and  as  an  example  to  evil-doers,  why 
should  not  the  guilty,  rather  than   the  innocent, 
suffer  ? 

God  is  always  revealing  his  hatred  to  sin,  and 
making  examples  of  sinners,  even  in  natural  provi- 
dence, and  has  often  done  this  in  a  marvelous  and 
most  signal  manner,  as  in  the  deluge,  the  destruc- 
tion of  Sodom  and  the  Canaanites,  etc. 

But  I  know  not  a  solitary  instance,  either  in  the 
sphere  of  natural  or  supernatural  providence,  where 
he  has  punished  the  innocent  in  the  place  of  the 
guilty,  or  for  their  sake. 

Besides,  the  moral  effect  of  such  a  rule  of  admin- 
istration would  be  only  evil.  It  paralyzes  incentives 
to  virtue  and  dissuasives  to  vice. 

Suppose  the  plan  of  family  and  of  civil  govern- 
ment was  to  punish  the  innocent  in  the  place  of 
the  guilty,  what  would  be  the  result  ?  With  so 
high  a  premium  set  on  vice,  virtue  would  be  impos- 
sible. 

2.  But  pretermitting  this  objection,  still  another 
presents  itself,  viz. :  that  just  to  the  extent  in  which 
Christ  was  punished  in  the  place  of  sinners,  just  to 


364  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

that  extent  is  punishment  twice  inflicted.  This 
no  one  can  fail  to  see,  and  this  fact  of  itself  requires 
the  total  rejection  of  the  scheme.  Other  objections, 
less  obvious,  but  not  less  real,  lie  against  the  theory, 
but  will  not  now  b*  named. 

Upon  the  whole,  it  relieves  substitution  of  some 
of  its  troubles,  but  creates  others,  perhaps  equally 
fatal. 

Having  briefly  referred  to  different  forms  of 
substitution,  as  held  by  libertarians,  and  having 
indicated  some  objections  to  them,  I  dismiss  this 
topic  with  this  general  statement,  viz. :  All  theories 
that  make  Christ  a  substitute  for  sinners,  or  his 
sufferings  a  substitute  for  the  penalty  due  to  sinners, 
involve  by  necessary  consequence  a  double  infliction 
of  the  penalty  itself,  or  the  infliction  of  the  penalty 
and  the  substitute  for  the  penalty.  No  scheme  that 
does  this  can  be  relieved  from  the  charge  of  ab- 
surdity. 

SECTION  II. — The  impartation  of  spiritual  life 
not  in  conflict  with  natural  law. 

God  reigns  supreme  in  all  departments  of  his 
creation — in  the  realms  both  of  matter  and  of  mind. 
Though  these  two  departments  are  widely  distinct, 
one  from  the  other,  yet  we  know  that  there  are 
many  striking  analogies  between  them.  We  are, 
therefore,  not  authorized  to  believe  that  God,  in  the 
physical  world,  is  in  conflict  with  himself  in  the 
spiritual  world;  or,  that  he  rules  in  the  physical. by 
law,  and  in  the  spiritual  without  law.  We  are 
rather  authorized  to  predicate  law  of  both,  and  of 
one  no  more  than  of  the  other;  also,  to  expect  the 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  -  365 

utmost  harmony  between  law  in  the  physical  and 
law  in  the  spiritual  world. 

This  reasonable  expectation  is  not  disappointed; 
for  the  Bible  abounds  with  analogies  between  the 
facts  of  the  physical  and  those  of  the  spirit  world. 

The  sacred  writers  generally,  and  Christ  himself, 
often  appeal  to  the  facts  and  laws  of  the  physical 
world  to  illustrate  and  enforce  the  truths  of  the 
spiritual  world,  showing  that  the  laws  of  the  latter 
are  not  in  conflict  with  the  laws  of  the  former,  and 
that  Christianity  itself  is  not  the  "Great  Excep- 
tion," or  something  without  law  and  order. 

Even  the  impartation  of  Christ's  spiritual  life  to 
believers  has  many  analogies  and  illustrations  in  the 
physical  world.  We  find  these  analogies  both  in 
inorganic  and  organic  matter.  Among  these  the 
following  may  be  noted : 

Inorganic, — i.  We  know  that  the  natural  magnet 
or  loadstone  imparts  its  magnetic  property  to  the 
needle,  and  permanently  magnetizes  it  without  losing 
its  own  magnetic  power.  We  know  also  that  this 
impartation  is  conditioned  upon  proximity,  or  actual 
contact.  We  know  just  as  little  how  the  magnet 
imparts  its  property  to  the  needle  as  we  know  how 
Christ  imparts  his  spiritual  life  to  believers.  In 
both  cases  we  know  something  of  the  law  or  condi- 
tions of  the  change,  but  nothing  of  the  manner  of 
the  change. 

2.  We  have  a  similar  phenomenon  in  chemical 
science,  when  one  substance  by  "catalytic  force" 
changes  the  state  or  condition  of  another  substance. 
This  change  is  secured  by  mere  proximity  and  with- 


366  .  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

out  actual  contact.  Still,  it  is  conditioned,  and 
human  agency  may  supply  the  conditions,  but  God 
in  nature  does  the  work.  Surely  we  do  not  contra- 
dict God  in  nature  when  we  affirm  that  he  can  and 
does,  on  given  conditions,  change  the  spiritual  state 
of  the  human  mind — regeneration  is  not  abnormal, 
but  has  its  analogies  even  in  inorganic  things. 

3.  Organic  matter. — In  the  vegetable  kingdom  we 
have  in  the  vine  a  beautiful  analogy  illustrating 
the  impartation  of  Christ's  spiritual  life  to  those 
united  to  him. 

Christ  says,  "  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches." 
Paul  often  uses  the  same  illustration.  As  the 
branch,  or  ingrafted  scion,  receives  its  life  from  the 
vine,  so  believers  receive  their  spiritual  life  from 
Christ.  This  is  both  illustration  and  proof  conclu- 
sive that  Christ  saves  by  imparting  his  own  spir- 
itual life  to  those  united  to  him  by  faith.  The 
impartation  of  life  is  as  real  in  one  case  as  in  the 
other. 

4.  In  animate  nature  we  also  have  striking  simili- 
tudes in  various  forms. 

(1)  In  the  relation  of  parent  and  progeny,    the 
animal  life  of  the  former  is  imparted  to  the  latter. 
Therje  is  no  division  of  nature,  for  nature  is  as  com- 
plete in  one  as  in   the   other.      Entire   humanity 
becomes    the   common   possession   of    parent   and 
progeny.     In  like  manner,  those  born  of  God  are 
made  partakers  of  the  nature  of  the  regenerating 
agent. 

(2)  In  the  process  of  injecting  healthy  blood  into 
the  veins  of  an  invalid,  whose  life  is  thereby  more 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  367 

or  less  prolonged,  we  have  an  impartation  of  ani- 
mal life — "the  life  is  in  the  blood " — from  one  ani- 
mal organism  to  another.  In  like  manner  spiritual 
life  is  an  impartation  from  Christ. 

(3)  By  the  assimilation  of  food,  the  animal  life  is 
sustained.  We  live  by  the  assimilation  of  what  we 
feed  upon.  Hence,  our  bodies  partake  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  food  upon  which  we  subsist. 

Christ  says,  "Except  ye  eat  my  flesh  and  drink 
my  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you."  This  strong 
language  teaches  us  that  we  become  partakers  of 
spiritual  life  by  assimilating  the  spiritual  life  of 
Christ. 

5.  We  also  have  in  the  domain  of  moral  and 
spiritual  things  a  similar  impartation  of  nature 
from  parent  to  progeny.  Adam,  as  wre  have  seen, 
corrupted  himself,  and  by  natural  generation  his 
corrupted  nature — his  state  of  spiritual  death — is 
imparted  to  all  his  posterity. 

Paul,  as  we  have  seen,  makes  Adam  a  type  of 
Christ,  and  the  first  the  source  of  spiritual  death, 
and  the  second  the  source  of  spiritual  life.  The 
relation  between  the  type  and  the  antitype  is  suffi- 
cient proof  that  men  are  saved  by  becoming  par- 
takers of  Christ's  righteousness,  and  not  by  having 
the  merits  of  a  penal  death  imputed  to  them,  which 
would  antagonize  the  plan  of  salvation  to  all  God's 
methods  of  administration  in  all  other  departments 
of  his  dominions.  (Has  substitution  any  analogies 
in  nature  ?) 

Certainly  we  can  not  know  how  Christ  imparts 
his  spiritual  life.  "We  hear  the  sound  of  the 


368  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

wind,  but  can  not  tell  whence  it  cometh  nor 
whither  it  goeth;  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of 
'the  Spirit."  But  we  know  as  little  as  to  how  the 
magnet  imparts  its  property  to  the  needle,  or  the 
vine  its  life  to  the  ingrafted  scion,  etc.  As  to 
mystery,  it  confronts  us  everywhere,  and  in  one 
sphere  no  less  than  another. 

What  is  possible  is  not  to  comprehend  God,  or  to 
understand  how  he  acts,  but  to  ascertain  the  law  or 
order  of  his  acting.  This  is  the  utmost  hoped  for 
in  reference  to  the  physical  world;  also  in  reference 
to  the  spiritual  world.  To  do  this  is  the  sole  mis- 
sion of  science,  and  just  so  far,  and  only  so  far,  as 
this  is  done  do  we  have  scientific  knowledge  of  any 
given  subject. 

We  know  that  the  physical  and  moral  are  in 
many  instances  so  intimately  related  as  to  be  insep- 
arable. The  same  course  of  conduct  that  purifies 
and  elevates  a  man's  spiritual  and  moral  condition, 
will  generally,  if  not  invariably,  improve  his  phys- 
ical condition. 

The  same  vices  that  debauch  a  man's  moral  and 
spiritual  state  have  a  strong  tendency  to  produce 
disease,  and  premature  decay,  and  death.  It  is  a 
natural  retribution  rather  than  a  fiat  visitation, 
that  "The  wicked  shall  not  live  out  half  his  days." 
The  physical  and  the  moral  largely  overlap  each 
other. 

It  is  a  highly  significant  fact  that  Christ  in  his 
earthly  ministry  dealt  with  the  physical  and  spir- 
itual infirmities  of  men  in  the  same  summary  man- 
ner. It  is  true  his  action  was,  in  relation  to  both, 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  369 

on  what  seems  to  us  a  supernatural  plane;  but  this 
by  no  means  implies  that  he  deals  with  the  phys- 
ical after  a  uniform  method,  and  with  the  spiritual 
without  any  method  at  all.  The  summary  manner 
in  which  Christ  dealt  with  physical  and  spiritual 
evils,  rather  implies  that  both  are  subject  to  simi- 
lar conditions,  both  alike  under  the  dominion  of 
natural  law,  and  both  subject  to  supernatural  inter- 
positions, or  what  to  us  seems  to  be  such. 

In  view  of  all  the  facts  known  to  us,  we  have,  I 
think,  no  right  to  assume  that  deliverance  from  the 
spiritual  maladies  of  human  nature,  through  the 
mediation  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  great  sin  bearer, 
the  great  sin  destroyer,  the  great  physician,  is  the 
4 '  Great  Exception. ' '  . 

This  is  to  exclude  the  very  idea  of  law  and  order 
from  the  plan  of  salvation,  and  to  create  antago- 
nism between  the  physical  world  and  the  spir- 
itual. 

Substitution  in  every  proper  sense  is  abnormal  to 
law,  is  absolutely  subversive  of  law,  and  seems  to 
me  to  render  forever  impossible  any  coherent  and 
scientific  statement  of  the  plan  of  salvation. 

The  Bible  teaches  the  same  conditionality  in 
relation  to  our  spiritual  well-being  that  it  teaches 
in  relation  to  those  physical  blessings  that  come 
through  human  activity.  Whatsoever  a  man  sow- 
eth  that  shall  he  also  reap,  is  just  as  true  in  the 
sphere  of  morals  and  religion  as  it  is  in  the  sphere 
of  agriculture. 

Every  command  laid  upon  the  human  will,  and 
the  Bible  is  full  of  them,  presupposes  that  there  is  a 
24 


370  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

fixed  and  uniform  connection  between  acts  and  their 
consequences. 

Just  so  far  as  we  understand  these  relations  be- 
tween consequences  and  their  antecedents  or  condi- 
tions and  are  able  to  classify  them  do  we  have  a 
scientific  knowledge  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  But 
how  is  it  possible  to  acquire  this  knov/ledge  if  sins 
may  be  punished  in  a  substitute  thousands  of  years 
before  they  are  committed  ?  The  very  conception 
defies  the  possibility  of  any  scientific  statement  of 
the  doctrine  of  retribution,  for  it  denies  all  nec- 
essary connection  between  acts  and  their  conse- 
quences, both  as  to  what  the  consequences  shall  be 
and  as  to  who  shall  suffer  them. 

Again,  we,  know  that,  as  free  agents,  we  have 
power  over  our  own  acts,  but  we  have  no  power 
over  the  consequences  of  our  actions;  for  the  rela- 
tion between  our  acts  and  their  consequences  is  a 
causal  or  necessary  relation.  He  that  believeth 
not  is  condemned  already,  though  he  may  wish 
not  to  be  condemned ;  and  he  that  believes  is  nec- 
essarily saved,  even  if  he  could  will  not  to  be. 

We  have  absolutely  no  control  over  the  conse- 
quences of  our  faith  or  unbelief.  A  man's  condem- 
nation or  punishment  inheres  in  his  unbelief,  as  the 
effect  inheres  in  its  cause. 

This  admits  of  rational  apprehension.  But  to 
say  that  the  condemnation  or  punishment  which 
inheres  in  a  sinner's  unbelief  was  endured  a  thou- 
sand years  ago  is  not  only  contradictory  of  the  plain 
teachings  of  the  Bible,  but  defies  rational  belief. 

There  is,  I  feel  quite  sure,  no  hope  of  a  scientific 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  371 

statement  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  if  we  make  sub- 
stitution its  corner-stone. 

But,  if  we  reject  the  unscriptural  and  unphilo- 
sophical  doctrine,  with  all  its  legal  fictions,  and 
allow  that  the  sinless  Christ,  by  obedience  unto 
death  and  the  sacrifice  of  himself  through  the 
eternal  spirit,  having  arisen  from  the  dead,  became 
the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  to 
whom  all  may  come  and  be  made  partakers  of  his 
righteousness,  then  a  scientific  plan  of  salvation  I 
think  is  possible. 

To  God  in  nature  we  look  for  all  secular  good, 
and  by  the  use  of  appropriate  means  we  seek  to 
acquire  that  good.  In  like  manner  we  look  to  God 
in  Christ  for  all  spiritual  good,  and  by  the  use  of 
the  means  God  has  ordained  we  seek  the  attainment 
of  that  good. 

We  do  not  incumber  our  theories  of  physical 
science  with  fictions,  nor  should  we  our  theology, 
otherwise  Christianity  must  ever  remain  the  "Great 
Exception." 


372  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER   XVIII. 

SECTION  I. — The  Anselmic  and  the  Pelagian 
soteriology  compared. 

These  schemes  are  the  utmost  extremes  of  the 
doctrine  of  salvation  by  works;  both  literally  save 
by  works.  Both  are  strictly  monergistic;  the  first 
referring  every  thing  to  the  divine  will,  and  the 
second,  every  thing  to  the  human  will. 

The  first  saves  strictly  by  the  works  of  the  divine 
law,  rendered  exclusively  by  a  substitute;  the  sec- 
ond saves  strictly  by  works  rendered  exclusively  by 
men  themselves. 

Both  assert  a  purely  legal  salvation,  or  a  salvation 
earned  by  obedience  to  the  divine  law.  Hence, 
they  both  save  exactly  in  the  same  way — that  is, 
both  by  works,  neither  by  grace ;  for  what  is  of 
works  is  not  of  grace.  (Rom.  iv.  4.) 

The  only  difference  between  them  is  that  in  one 
case  the  obedience  to  the  law  is  rendered  by  a  sub- 
stitute, and  in  the  other  by  men  themselves.  This 
is  an  incidental,  not  a  vital  difference;  for  works 
rendered  by  a  substitute  and  the  same  works  ren- 
dered by  a  principal  are  of  exactly  equal  value. 
Both  have  exactly  the  same  power  to  save,  and 
save  legally  or  by  deeds  of  the  law;  and  both  alike 
exclude  salvation  by  grace. 

If  it  is  said  that  the  sinner  can  not  render  perfect 


NOX-PENAL  THEORY. 


373 


obedience  to  the  law,  this  is  readily  granted. 
But  the  question  is  not  whether  either  scheme  is 
possible;  for  neither  is  so;  but  whether  both  do  not 
propose  to  save  men  by  the  deeds  of  the  law,  in- 
stead of  by  grace.  This  they  certainly  do. 

But  if  Christ,  as  a  substitute  for  sinners,  obeyed 
the  law,  and  his  obedience  is  set  to  their  credit, 
are  they  not  saved  by  grace  ? 

I  answer,  By  no  means;  for,  what  is  of  law  is  not 
of  grace. 

If  salvation  by  substitution  were  possible,  it  would 
be  purely  a  legal  salvation,  and  not  a  gracious  sal- 
vation. 

If  A  is  imprisoned  for  debt,  and  B  pays  the  debt 
in  his  interest,  then  A  is  released  by  the  deeds  of 
the  law;  it  is  purely  a  legal  transaction,  or  he  is  re- 
leased by  law,  or  justified  by  works,  as  truly  so  as 
if  he  had  paid  the  debt  himself. 

Certainly  we  might  say  that  kindness  prompted 
the  act  on  the  part  of  B  to  pay  the  debt  in  the  in- 
terest of  A.  But  that  is  nothing  to  the  point;  for 
it  was  not  B's  kindness,  but  .his  legal  act  that 
released  A  from  prison.  Hence,  he  is  saved  purely 
by  a  legal  righteousness.  Hence,  it  is  clear  as 
noon  that  substitution  saves  men  exclusively  by 
deeds  of  the  law  as  really  so  as  does  Pelagianism. 

If  it  should  be  said  that  it  was  a  gracious  act  in 
Christ  to  pay  the  penalty,  this  may  be  granted; 
still  it  is  true  that  he  paid  it  with  a  legal  equiva- 
lent. 

But  the  Bible  teaches  us  in  the  most  explicit  man- 
ner that  salvation  is  not  bv  the  deeds  of  the  law  or 


374  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

by  legal  righteousness,  but  by  grace,  or  by  the 
righteousness  that  is  received  by  faith;  it  is  by 
grace,  and  of  faith  that  it  might  be  by  grace.  It  is 
too  plain  to  require  further  argument  that  substitu- 
tion as  literally  saves  sinners  by  a  legal  righteous- 
ness as  does  Pelagianism;  also  equally  plain  that 
both  are  in  direct  conflict  with  the  Bible. 

Of  course  all  schemes  that  condition  salvation 
partly  upon  Christ's  substitutionary  work,  so  called, 
and  partly  upon  human  works,  save  sinners  by  a 
mixed,  or  duplex,  legal  righteousness.  In  all  such 
cases  the  work  of  Christ  and  that  of  the  sinner 
supplement  each  other.  The  sinner,  it  seems, 
partly  saves  himself  and  is  partly  saved  by  Christ. 

But  according  to  the  Bible,  salvation  is  exclu- 
sively of  grace,  and  in  no  sense  by  works  performed 
either  by  principal  or  by  substitute;  nor  partly  by 
one  and  partly  by  the  other. 

Now,  the  plan  that  I  have  attempted  to  present 
is  radically  opposed  to  all  schemes  of  salvation  by 
works  of  the  law  or  legal  righteousness,  whether 
rendered  by  principal  or  substitute. 

Regeneration  into  spiritual  life  is  as  literally 
without  works  as  is  generation  into  natural  life. 
Salvation  is  all  of  grace,  "but  of  faith  that  it  might 
be  by  grace.' ' 

It  is  no  more  and  no  less  than  being  made  par- 
takers of  Christ's  righteousness,  "who  is  the  end 
of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  be- 
lieveth." 

This  honors  to  the  utmost  justice,  law,  and  God, 
because  it  is  Christ's  righteousness.  The  difference 


NON-PENAL  THEORY. 


375 


between  salvation  by  works  or  legal  righteousness 
and  salvation  by  grace  is  exactly  the  difference 
between  the  legal  heirship  and  heirship  by  the 
grace  of  adoption.  The  legitimate  child  is  an  heir 
by  law,  and  not  by  grace ;  but  the  adopted  child  is 
an  heir  by  grace — not  by  law,  but  not  in  violation 
of  law.  One  relation  as  truly  satisfies  law  as  the 
other,  though  the  legitimate  child  is  made  an  heir 
by  law,  and  the  adopted  child  by  grace. 

Legitimate  heirship  is  a  matter  of  law.  Adoptive 
heirship  is  a  matter  of  will,  or  grace.  All  the  spir- 
itual children  of  God  are  heirs  by  adoption,  and 
not  by  law  or  works  (Gal.  iv.  1-7 ;  Eph.  i.  5). 

The  doctrine  that  it  was  necessary  for  God  to 
punish  the  innocent  in  order  to  make  it  possible  to 
pardon  the  guilty  is  so  abhorrent  to  our  natural 
instincts,  or  sense  of  natural  justice,  that  those  who 
are  skeptically  inclined  can  readily  persuade  them- 
selves that  that  religion  of  which  it  claims  to  be  an 
indispensable  part,  is  itself  false,  and  as  such  ought 
to  be  rejected. 

In  the  hands  of  such  the  doctrine  becomes  a  pow- 
erful weapon  against  Christianity  in  every  form. 
For  nothing  is  easier  than  to  show  its  unreasonable- 
ness, its  injustice,  its  tendency  to  destroy  all  incen- 
tives to  virtue,  or  remove  all  restraints  from  vice 
and  general  lawlessness.  To  paralyze  this  natural 
tendency  to  lawlessness,  its  advocates  find  it  neces- 
sary to  make  it  the  Great  Exception  in  the  admin- 
istration of  the  world. 

It  is,  perhaps,  the  most  vulnerable  part  of  every 
scheme  of  theology  of  which  it  forms  a  part 


376  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

It  is  the  most  effective  argument  used  by  skeptics 
against  Christianity.  They  use  it  with  great  force. 
It  is  their  most  effective  argument,  simply  because 
it  is  absolutely  unanswerable.  I  do  no  not  hesitate 
to  say  that  all  their  other  arguments  admit  of  ready 
and  rational  answers.  But  as  to  this  one,  the  best 
reply  is  that  it  forms  the  u  Great  Exception,"  which 
is  no  answer  at  all. 

Many  persons  reject  Christianity,  not  because  of 
what  it  is  in  itself,  but  because  of  what  creed  makers 
represent  it  to  be.  The  false  representation  is  igno- 
rantly  misapprehended  for  the  truth,  which  is  accord^ 
ingly  rejected.  By  this  means  Christianity  is  made 
to  suffer  on  account  of  the  false  theories,  as  well  as 
the  false  practices  of  its  friends. 

SECTION  II. — Substitution  an  incubiis  to  Chris- 
tianity. 

There  is  something  repulsive  to  the  human  mind 
in  the  very  idea  of  punishing  the  innocent  in  the 
place  of  the  guilty;  especially  that  God  should 
concentrate  upon  his  sinless  Son  all  the  suffering 
due  to  all  humanity  through  all  eternity. 

Dr.  Hodge  recognizes  this  fact.  He  says  (Vol. 
II.,  p.  506): 

"He  bore  the  guilt  of  our  sins,  and  endured  the 
penalty  in  our  stead.  We  may  not  approve  of  this 
method  of  salvation.  The  idea  of  the  innocent 
bearing  the  sins  of  the  guilty,  and  being  punished 
in  his  stead,  may  not  be  agreeable  to  our  feelings  or 
to  our  modes  of  thinking,  but  it  can  hardly  be  de- 
nied that  such  is  the  representation  and  doctrine  of 
the  Scriptures." 


XOX-PEXAL  THEORY. 


377 


Is  it  not  unreasonable  that  the  beneficent  Creator 
should  endow  the  human  mind  with  an  instinctive 
sense  of  right,  and  then  himself  shock  that  sense 
of  right  by  punishing  the  innocent  in  the  place  of 
the  guilty  ?  Can  we  not  permit  the  Creator  to  be 
consistent  with  himself?  Did  he  purposely  set  the 
natural  instincts  of  humanity  in  array  against  his 
own  administration  ?  Has  he  purposely  set  subject- 
ive and  objective  law  in  opposition  to  each  other? 
Must  we  assert  to  be  true  what  we  intuitively  know 
is  not  -true,  because  a  mere  theory  requires  us  to  do 
so  ?  Dr.  Hodge  is  certainly  right  when  he  admits  that 
to  punish  the  innocent  in  the  place  of  the  guilty 
' '  may  not  be  agreeable  to  our  feelings  or  to  our 
modes  of  thinking;"  and  for  this  all-sufficient 
reason  the  doctrine  of  substitution  is  a  serious  im- 
pediment to  the  progress  of  the  gospel.  Its  tend- 
ency is  to  repel,  not  to  attract.  It  causes  many  to 
doubt  and  hesitate,  and  many  others  to  reject  the 
gospel  outright. 

The  modern  Jew  denies  that  the  doctrine  is 
taught  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  assigns  as  one 
reason  for  rejecting  Christianity  that  this  doctrine 
of  substitution  is  held  by  Christians. 

Dr.  H.  Pereira  Mendes  says  (North  American 
Revierv,  June,  1887,  p.  606): 

"  No  man  can  save  another  by  suffering  for  him 
(in  his  place).  '  The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die.' 
'  He  who  sins  against  me  I  will  blot  out  of  my 
book,'  was  the  divine  answer  to  Moses,  who  sought 
to  be  the  vicarious  atonement  for  his  sinful  people. 
No  man  can  intervene,  for  not  even  Moses  was  ac- 
cepted to  die  to  save  men." 


378  NATURE  OF  ATONEMENT. 

This  learned  Jew  makes  atonement  consist  in 
obedience  to  the  preceptive  side  of  law — not  in  suf- 
fering its  penalty.  In  this  he  is  thoroughly  right. 
No  atonement  was  ever  made  by  suffering  a  penal ty. 
The  fatal  error  of  the  Jew  is  in  assuming  that  every 
man  can  make  atonement  for  himself.  It  is  not  at 
all  probable  that  this  Jewish  writer  would  accept 
Christianity  even  if  substitution  had  never  been 
held  by  any  professing  the  Christian  faith.  The 
doctrine,  however,  furnishes  him  with  a  powerful 
argument  against  Christianity,  with  which,  it  has 
been  largely,  but  falsely  identified;  for  probably 
ninety-nine  out  of  a  hundred  intelligent  and  un- 
prejudiced men  would  accept  the  Jewish  idea  of 
atonement  by  personal  obedience  in  preference  to  a 
penal  and  substitutionary  atonement. 

Christianity  is  thus  made  to  suffer  on  account  of 
the  false  theories  of  its  friends. 

SECTION  III. — All  fiction  excluded. 

The  plan  which  I  have  presented  greatly  simpli- 
fies the  plan  of  salvation — releasing  it  from  all 
fictions  and  legal  shams,  and  brings  the  sinner  into 
direct  contact  by  faith  with  the  present  loving 
Christ,  who  is  willing  and  able  to  save  to  the 
utmost  all  that  trust  in  him. 

It  takes  away  from  the  individual  all  doubt  and 
apprehension  as  to  whether  Christ  died  for  him ;  it 
removes  alike  all  ground  for  despair  on  one  hand, 
and  of  presumption  on  the  other.  It  makes  salva- 
tion available  to  all,  independently  of  all  ritualistic 
observances  and  priestly  offices  by  human  hands. 
Contact  by  faith  of  the  individual  soul  with  the 


NON-PENAL  THEORY.  379 

living,  loving  Christ  insures  salvation.  Hence,  its 
perfect  adaptation  to  all  rational  minds  in  all  possi- 
ble conditions  and  emergencies. 

The  blessed,  loving  Christ  is  always  present  with 
the  sinner,  able  and  willing  to  afford  him  all  need- 
ful grace,  and  to  save  him  at  one  time  and  place  no 
more,  no  less,  than  another;  for  the  ever-present 
now  is  the  day  of  salvation. 

Salvation  is  conditioned,  but  is  conditioned  only 
on  the  states  and  activities  of  the  mind  itself,  and 
upon  nothing  external  to  the  mind.  All  faith  and 
hope  founded  on  penance,  fastings,  prayers,  good 
works,  ritualistic  observances,  sacraments,  and 
priestly  manipulations,  or  any  thing  else  that  is 
interposed  between  the  soul  and  Christ,  is  not  only 
worthless,  but  illusive.  Christ  has  no  representa- 
tives, no  substitutes,  no  vicegerents  commissioned 
to  do  his  work.  He  alone  can  save. 

This  plan,  I  fully  believe,  is  sustained  by  the 
sacred  Scriptures — is  not  in  conflict  with  a  single 
Bible  fact,  nor  with  any  known  scientific  truth  in 
the  realm  of  matter  or  of  mind.  Its  own  self-con- 
sistency and  its  harmony  with  all  known  facts  is  a 
self-affirmation  of  its  truth,  and  entitles  it  to  uni- 
versal acceptance. 


PART  III. 

EXTENT   OF  ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER   I. 

[The  arguments  founded  upon  express  declarations  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  for  and  against  a  limited  atonement,  are  for  sufficient 
reasons  omitted  in  this  discussion  ] 

SECTION  I. — Argument  founded  on  the  humanity 
of  Christ. 

The  fact  that  Christ  did  die  for  sinners  is  not  in 
question,  this  being  conceded.  The  only  issue  is 
whether  he  died  for  some  or  for  all  men.  I  affirm 
the  latter. 

i.  I  base  the  first  argument  upon  the  incarnation 
and  its  design. 

' '  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life"  (John 
iii.  16). 

"  When  the  fullness  of  time  had  come  God  sent 
forth  his  Son,  born  of  woman,  born  under  the  law, 
that  he  might  redeem  them  which  were  under  the 
law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons  " 
(Gal.  iv.  4,  5). 


EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT.  381 

For  the  accomplishment  of  his  mission  the  Son 
took  to  himself,  not  the  nature  of  angels,  but  the 
seed  of  Abraham  (Heb.  xi.  16). 

He  took  to  himself  our  common  humanity  in  its 
wholeness.  As  every  man  possesses  all  the  essen- 
tials of  humanity,  so  Christ  took  to  himself  the 
humanity  common  to  every  other  man;  for  he 
could  not  take  humanity  at  all  without  taking  the 
common  property  of  every  man.  The  apostle 
distinctly  states  (a)  the  manner  of  Christ's  incarna- 
tion (born  of  a  woman);  (£)  his  subjection  to  the 
law  (made  under  the  law);  (c)  the  object  of  his 
incarnation — (that  he  might  redeem  them  which 
were  under  the  law).  Hence,  becoming  as  truly 
human  as  was  Abraham,  or  David,  or  any  other 
man,  he  became  of  sheer  necessity  the  brother  of 
every  man  by  consanguinity.  All  are  the  offspring 
of  God  (Acts  xvii.  28).  All  men  constitute  one 
great  brotherhood,  and  Christ  is  an  essential  part 
of  that  brotherhood.  Apart  from  tribal  relation- 
ship, he  is  as  truly  the  brother  of  one  man  as  an- 
other. No  person  admitting  the  unity  of  the  human 
race  will  question  these  facts. 

Now,  let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  Christ,  as  human, 
"was  without  sin."  As  such  he  knew  nothing  of 
those  alienations,  selfishness,  indifference  possible  to 
sinful  man.  He  could  not,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  fail  to  love  his  neighbor,  every  member  of 
the  one  common  brotherhood,  as  he  loved  himself. 
If  there  ever  has  been  one  human  being,  or  ever 
shall  be  such,  whom  he  does  not  love  as  he  loves 
himself,  then  he  can  not  be  sinless;  for  such  love 


382  EXTENT  OF  ATONKMENT. 

the  divine  law  under  which  he  was  born  impera- 
tively requires  (Matt.  xix.  19). 

Such  love  only  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law  (Rom. 
xiii.  1 8).  How  much  bodily  pain  and  mental  afflic- 
tion may  a  man  be  required  to  endure  for  the  sake 
of  the  salvation  of  his  soul  ?  What  shall  a  man 
give  in  exchange  for  his  soul  ?  If  the  salvation  of 
the  human  soul  was  purchasable  or  procurable  by 
the  sacrifice  of  the  body,  would  not  fidelity  to  the 
soul — to  self — require  it?  And  would  not  a  true 
self-love  make  the  sacrifice?  Certainly;  and  the 
salvation  would  be  cheaply  purchased  at  such  a 
cost.  If  the  sinless  soul  of  Christ  could  have  been 
put  in  peril  of  endless  death,  and  then  could  have 
been  released  from  that  peril  by  the  sacrifice  of 
natural  life,  would  not  fidelity  to  his  soul  have  re- 
quired this  sacrifice,  and  would  not  true  self-love 
have  made  the  sacrifice?  Certainly  no  one  who 
understands  the  value  of  the  immortal  soul  will 
deny  this.  Now,  just  what  any  man  would  be 
required  to  do  for  himself,  the  law  requires  him  to 
do  for  his  brother. 

Christ's  own  soul  being  sinless  is  not  endangered, 
but  the  souls  of  his  brethren  are  in  peril  of  endless 
death,  and  just  what  he  would  do  for  himself  in 
like  peril,  the  law  of  fraternal  love  requires  him  to 
do  for  his  imperiled  brethren.  This  the  law  does 
not  require  for  some,  but  for  the  absolute  all.  If 
it  is  not  done  for  all — for  e.very  one — the  law  is 
not  fulfilled,  is  not  magnified  and  made  honorable, 
and  he  could  not  be  sinless  before  the  law.  If  it 
should  be  said  that  this  presentation  of  the  subject 


EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT.  383 

puts  the  Savior  of  men  too  much  on  equality  with 
men,  I  reply  that,  notwithstanding  his  immense 
superiority  to  men  in  some  respects,  yet  he  truly  is 
a  man,  and  as  such  was-required  to  obey  the  law  as 
other  men. 

It  is  true  this  assumption  of  humanity  was  vol- 
untary and  gratuitous;  but  having  voluntarily  as- 
sumed it  he  was  as  much  bound  as  any  other  man. 

It  is  one  of  the  glories  of  Christ,  and  one  of  the 
excellencies  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  that  the  Son 
of  God,  under  the  promptings  of  immeasurable 
love,  voluntarily  assumed  humanity.  Put  himself 
under  the  law  as  to  his  humanity  for  the  purpose 
of  redeeming  the  brotherhood  who  are  under  the 
law  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself  for  them.  Christ 
himself,  after  his  resurrection,  taught  the  necessity 
of  his  own  sufferings. 

' '  O  foolish  men  and  slow  to  believe  all  that  the 
prophets  have  spoken,  Behooved  it  not  the  Christ 
to  suffer  these  things  to  enter  into  his  glory  "  (Luke 
xxiv.  25;  xxvi.  46;  Acts  xvii.  3;  Phil.  ii.  4-8). 

There  are  different  kinds  of  necessity : 

(a)  Necessity  having  its  grounds  in  the  relation 
of  means  to  an  end,  as 'the  necessity  of  food  to  sup- 
port life. 

(b)  Necessity  having  its  ground  in  the  relation 
between  a  prediction  and  its  fulfillment,  the  event 
is  necessary  to  the  fulfillment  of  the  prediction. 

(c)  A  necessity  having  its  ground  in  the  inherent 
nature   of    things,   as  the   sympathy   of  a   loving 
parent  for  a  suffering  child — the  necessity  of  an 
irrepressible  spontaneity. 


384  EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT. 

In  what  sense  was  the  sufferings  of  Christ  neces- 
sary ?  I  answer : 

(a)  It  was  necessary  as  a  means  to  an  end — the 
remission  of  sin,  "for  without  the  shedding  of  blood 
there  is  no  remission  "  (Heb.  ix.  22). 

(£)  His  suffering  was  necessary  to  fulfill  the 
prophecy;  this,  however,  was  only  an  adventitious 
necessity,  and  furnishes  no  part  of  the  reason  of 
Christ's  sufferings,  but  a  ground  of  faith  in  him  as 
the  Christ. 

(c)  Was  there  not  also  a  necessity  for  his  suffer- 
ings grounded  in  his  humanity  in  the  relation  of 
universal  brotherhood?  Certainly  I  can  not  prove 
that  this  doctrine  is  intended  to  be  taught  in  the 
text  just  cited,  though  I  suspect  that  it  is.  I  am  con- 
fident that  the  contrary  can  not  be  made  to  appear. 
I  am  also  confident  that  the  idea  which  I  have  sug- 
gested is  plainly  involved  in  the  doctrine  of  the  in- 
carnation and  its  designs. 

The  law  requires  us  to  love  others  as  ourselves, 
even  our  enemies  (Matt.  xix.  19;  v.  44).  Paul 
enjoins  the  Christian  to  love  or  account  others  bet- 
ter than  themselves;  to  look  not  on  their  own 
things,  but  on  the  things  of  others;  to  have  in 
them  the  mind  which  was  in  Christ,  "Who,  being 
in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  God — or  counted  it  not  a  prize  to  be 
equal  with  God,  but  emptied  himself,  taking  the 
form  of  a  servant  being  made  in  the  likeness  of 
men,  and  being  formed  in  fashion  as  a  man.  He 
humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient  unto  death. 
Yea,  even  unto  the  death  of  the  cross"  (Phil.  ii. 


EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT.  385 

4-8).  The  beloved  disciple  says  :  ' '  Hereby  perceive 
we  the  love  of  God  because  he  laid  down  his  life 
for  us,  and  we  ought  to  lay  down  our  lives  for  the 
brethren  "  (i  John  iii.  16). 

All  these  biblical  utterances  are  in  strict  accord 
with  the  law.  ' '  Love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself. ' ' 
Christ,  as  has  been  seen,  was  born  under  the  law, 
and  as  a  man  was  really  required  to  fulfill  it  as  any 
other  man.  If  men  are  required,  if  an  occasion 
requiring  it  should  arise,  to  lay  down  their  natural 
lives  for  the  salvation  of  their  fellows,  it  is  perti- 
nent to  inquire  if  Christ,  as  man,  was  not  required 
by  virtue  of  his  being  a  man,  to  lay  down  his  life 
for  his  brotherhood,  even  though  they  were  his 
enemies? 

Men,  like  the  angels,  are  of  necessity  under  this 
law,  irrespective  of  their  own  volitions.  Christ 
is  under  it  by  his  own  choice,  but  the  volition 
which  puts  him  under  it  is  his  consent  to  become 
man,  to  take  to  himself  humanity,  or  the  seed  of 
Abraham..^  Humanity  assumed,  it  is  not  then  a 
matter  of  choice  whether  he  keeps  the  law.  The 
law,  he  being  able  to  redeem  the  brotherhood, 
imperatively  requires  him  to  lay  down  his  life,  not 
for  some,  but  for  all  mankind,  for  every  man,  and 
as  before  remarked,  if  any  one  of  the  race  is  ex- 
cluded the  law  is  not  fulfilled. 

The  law  requires  me  to  love  all  men,  even  my 
enemies,  and  if  the  sacrifice  of  my  natural  life  will 
save  their  souls,  and  nothing  else  could  save  them, 
then  the  law  requires  the  sacrifice.  Should  I  refuse 
to  make  the  sacrifice,  then  I  would  not  fulfill  the 
25 


386  EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT. 

law,  because  I  would  not  love  my  neighbor  as  my- 
self. Or,  if  I  should  love  half,  and  make  provision 
for  them,  and  leave  all  others  unprovided  for,  I 
would  not  obey  the  law,  but  be  guilty  before  the 
law. 

Christ  is  both  sinless  and  divine.  He  only,  of  all 
men,  is  able  to  keep  the  law,  and  to  offer  an  accept- 
able sacrifice  for  sinful  humanity.  This  he  did, 
and  by  so  doing  retained  his  sinlessness  as  a  man, 
and  magnified  the  law,  honored  the  law,  by  its  ful- 
fillment. But  if  there  ever  was  or  ever  will  be  a 
human  being,  or  one  of  the  great  brotherhood  for 
whom  he  did  not  give  himself  as  a  sacrifice  unto 
God,  it  is  plain  that  he  has  not  kept  the  law  or 
honored  it.  "If  ye  love  them  which  love  you,  what 
reward  have  ye?  Do  not  even  the  publicans  the 
same  ?  ' ' 

In  the  light  of  these  facts,  what  becomes  qf  the 
dogma  of  a  limited  atonement  ?  That  Christ  died 
for  some,  and  not  for  others,  that  he  died  unequally 
for  the  elect  and  the  reprobate?  It  is  simply  swept 
to  the  winds,  and  utterly  demolished.  In  the  light 
of  these  facts,  it  is  perfectly  certain  that  the  Savior 
could  make  atonement  only  for  all  or  for  none. 

SECTION  II. — Argument  founded  tipon  the  Fa- 
therhood, or  tJie  divinity  of  Christ.  Facts  con- 
nected with  the  divine  side  of  Christ  ^  s  character 
disprove  a  limited  atonement. 

Having  considered  in  a  brief  way  the  bearing  of 
the  incarnation,  or  human  side  of  the  God-Man, 
upon  the  extent  of  the  atonement,  let  us  look  briefly 
at  the  adverse  side. 


EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT.  387 

God  is  revealed  to  us  in  the. sacred  Scriptures, 
not  less  as  our  Father,  benefactor,  and  friend,  than 
as  our  Creator,  ruler,  and  judge.  These  charac- 
teristics are  in  no  sense  incompatible,  but  subsist  in 
the  utmost  harmony  (Ps.  cxix.  75;  Sam.  iii.  35). 
He  is  repeatedly  declared  to  be  "love,"  without 
any  qualification.  His  tender  mercies  are  said  to 
be  over  all  his  works — to  endure  forever.  But 
divine  love  and  mercy — no  true  love  is  incompatible 
with  justice,  or  authority,  or  with  chastisement,  or 
punishment,  or  with  anger;  justice  is  the  rule  of 
the  divine  administration  in  the  interests  of  God's 
benevolent  purposes.  Punishment  is  identical  with 
chastisement,  except  in  the  case  of  the  absolutely 
incorrigible,  and  is  always  administered  in  the  in- 
terests of  those  upon  whom  it  falls  (Ps.  cxix.  75; 
Sam.  iii.  33). 

What  rational  inferences  do  these  facts  authorize 
in  relation  to  God's  purposes  concerning  his  creat- 
ures and  the  means  necessary  to  their  well-being  ? 
If  the  great  Creator  is  love,  if  he  is  the  Father  of 
all  men,  all  being  his  offering  in  the  same  sense,  as 
he  necessarily  is;  if  he  is  infinite  in  every  perfection, 
and  inexhaustible  in  resources,  standing  in  no  sort 
of  dependence  for  his  own  happiness,  is  it  rational 
to  infer  that  he  has  created  some  for  the  purpose  of 
everlasting  bliss,  and  others  for  the  purpose  of 
everlasting  woe?  Such,  indeed,  is  the  monstrous 
presupposition  of  Calvinism;  for  this  doctrine  in  its 
last  analysis,  whether  considered  in  its  supralapsa- 
rian  or  infralapsarian  form,  leads  us  by  legitimate 


388  EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT. 

logical  sequence  to  the  conclusion  that  God  created 
some  men  for  heaven  and  some  men  for  hell. 

This  idea,  it  is  true,  is  quite  abhorrent  to  the 
minds  of  many,  who  rejoice  to  call  themselves  Cal- 
vinists.  The  idea,  however,  is  plainly  involved  in 
the  "horrible  decree."  See  Calvin's  Institutes, 
III.,  xxi.  3;  xxiii.  7;  xxiv.  12,  13.  This  conclu- 
sion, I  hesitate  not  to  say,  is  unreasonable  in  itself, 
is  abhorrent  to  the  moral  instinct  of  every  rational 
being,  even  of  those  who  entertain  the  idea;  hence, 
Calvin  himself  denominates  it  a  "  horrible  decree." 

Natural  religion  not  only  authorizes,  but  requires 
us  to  teach  that  all  men  sustain  to  the  Creator  the 
same  natural  relation,  and  that  all  are  created  for 
the  same  end,  and  all  accordingly  are  the  ob- 
jects of  the  same  beneficent  solicitude,  and  all 
the  provisions  are  made  for  the  happiness  of  all 
(Read  Ps.  xix.  1-4;  also  Rom.  i.  19,  20).  These 
are  facts  of  natural  religion,  and  they  so  far  reveal 
God  as  the  proper  object  of  faith  and  worship,  as  to 
leave  men  without  excuse. 

But  the  principal  lessons  of  natural  religion  are 
to  be  drawn  from  the  study  of  man  himself,  who  is 
not  a  creature  of  God,  as  are  the  physical  heavens, 
the  earth,  and  all  irrational  things  thereunto  per- 
taining, but  who  is  in  strict  propriety  of  terms  the 
child  of  God,  made  in  his  image  and  likeness. 

Nowhere  else  can  the  invisible  and  only  partially 
revealed  parent  be  so  appropriately  and  effectually 
studied  as  in  the  child.  All  the  distinctive  charac- 
teristics of  the  parent  may  not  be  found  to  exist  in 
all  their  plenitude  in  the  child;  but  all  the  essen- 


EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT.  389 

tial  attributes  of  the  child  are  presupposed  to  exist 
in  the  parent.  It  is,  consequently,  the  high  prerog- 
ative of  natural  religion  to  reason  from  the  less  to 
the  greater,  or  from  man  to  God;  to  interpret  the 
divine  by  the  universally  recognized  facts  of  human 
nature.  What  do  reason  and  instinct  concurrently 
teach  concerning  the  parental  relationship? 

(1)  In  answering  this  question  it  seems  almost 
superfluous  to  say  that  the  instinctive  love  of  off- 
spring, even  in  lower  animals,  is  stronger  than  the 
self-preservative  and  instinctive  fear  of  danger,  and 
even  death.     The  wild  bear  will  face  death  rather 
than  desert  her  cubs.     In  human  parents  this  in- 
stinctive love  and  sacrificing  devotion  are' equally 
strong  and  irrepressible. 

(2)  This    instinctive    love    is    commended   and 
strongly  supported  by  reason,  and  the  moral  intui- 
tions of  the  rational  mind.     Hence,  in  all  ages  and 
climes,   however   perverted  in   judgment,  and  de- 
based in  moral  feeling,  parents  have  ever  deemed  it 
one  of  the  plainest  dictates  of  common  sense,  and 
one  of  the  first  imperatives  of  conscience  to  protect 
and    provide   for   their   children.      Hven   where   a 
blinding  superstition,  the  form  of  a  false  religion, 
or  mistaken  economy,   or   economic  reasons   have 
sanctioned     or    enjoined    infanticide    and    human 
sacrifice,  the  imperative  duty  of  child  protection  is 
not  denied   or  ignored.     In  such  cases,  what  was 
deemed  a  less  duty  was  only  subordinated  to  what 
was  deemed  a  greater  one.     Such  cases  furnish  no 
exception  to  the  rule. 

Parental  obligation  is  the  universal  rule,  as  re- 


390  EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT. 

vealed  by  natural  religion;  and  this  plain  teaching 
of  natural  religion  is  supported  by  the  highest 
sanctions  of  revealed  religion.  These  instincts,  or 
rational  intuitions  of  the  parental  heart,  are  the 
authoritative  utterances  of  God  speaking  in  nature, 
and  are  everywhere  in  revelation  affirmed  as  a  radical 
characteristic  of  humanity.  (Read  Matt.  vii.  9-11.) 

We  have  in  this  beautiful  passage  d  fortiori  ar- 
gument— a  distinct  recognition  of  parental  benefac- 
tion as  a  lineament  of  the  divine  image.  In  this 
respect  the  fundamental  characteristics  of  the 
human  and  divine  parentage  are  identical,  differing 
only  in  degree,  not  in  kind. 

The  parent  who  would  wantonly  and  purposely 
disregard  the  welfare  of  his  child,  or  deliberately 
plan  its  ruin,  would  be  deemed  a  monster,  and 
would  receive  the  mental  execration  of  savages,  as 
well  as  of  civilized  men. 

How  dare  Calvinists  impute  to  the  divine  Father 
of  all,  "in  the  horrible  decree  of  reprobation,"  a 
cruelty  of  which  men  in  the  deepest  state  of  sav- 
agery are  incapable  ? 

The  infliction  of  physical  torture  and  death  is 
the  utmost  that  human  savagery  can  do,  but  these 
compared  with  the  eternal  death  of  the  soul,  are 
less  than  the  invisible  grain  of  sand  compared  with 
the  physical  universe. 

Natural  religion — God  speaking  in  nature — with 
her  multitudinous  tongues  enters  an  indignant  pro- 
test against  Augustinian  limitarianism,  and  of 
course  against  a  limited  atonement,  and  proclaims 
in  countless  ways  his  good-will  to  all  his  creatures. 


EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT.  391 

As  well  might  we  be  restricted  by  divine  decree 
from  the  air  we  breathe,  or  the  fecundity  of  nature, 
which  furnishes  all  living  things  with  food,  as  to 
limit  by  decree  the  good-will  of  the  Father  of  all 
to  a  select  few,  as  the  unique  objects  of  a  "peculiar 
and  discriminating  love. ' ' 

"If  ye  then  being  evil  know  how  to  give  good 
gifts  unto  your  children,  how  much  more  shall 
your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  give  good  things 
unto  them  that  ask  him." 

Let  it  be  noted  that  in  this  utterance  Christ  an- 
nounced a  universal  fact  of  natural  religion,  viz. : 
that  parental  love  and  benefaction  are  the  common 
attributes  of  human  and  divine  parentage.  If  it  is 
an  innate  and  irrepressible  attribute  of  sinful  men, 
how  much  more  irrepressible  is  it  in  the  unerring 
and  unselfish  Father  of  all  ? 

The  Augustinian  can  avoid  the  force  of  these 
facts  only  by  lifting  revealed  religion  quite  out  of 
the  sphere  of  natural  religion,  and  creating  an  un- 
reconcilable  conflict  between  them.  This  of  neces- 
sity makes  God  in  revelation  contradict  himself  in 
nature. 

In  explanation  of  this  and  a  hundred  other  texts, 
Calvinists  can,  and  often  do,  resort  to  a  species  of 
special  pleading,  unworthy  alike  of  their  intelli- 
gence and  the  gravity  of  the  subject. 

The  Calvinist  can  say  as  Dr.  Hodge,  that  the 
justification  of  even  the  elect  is  conditioned  upon 
faith,  meaning  nothing  more  than  that  the  several 
divine  acts  in  bringing  the  elect  to  glory  sustain  to 
each  other  the  relation  of  antecedent  and  sequence, 


393  EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT. 

leaving  the  unsuspecting  reader  in  utter  bewilder- 
ment, or  in  a  state  of  misapprehension.  In  refer- 
ence to  the  text  in  hand,  he  can  evasively  say, 
' '  none  but  the  elect  ever  earnestly  ask  "bread  or  a 
fish,  and  to  these  the  divine  Father  gives  in  his  own 
good  time  the  good  things  pertaining  to  salvation." 
In  like  manner  he  disposes  of  all  the  conditions 
with  which  salvation  is  connected,  as  prayer,  re- 
pentance, faith,  etc. 

Thus  reversing  the  divine  order,  making  all  such 
antecedents  and  conditions  the  necessitated  se- 
quences of  the  effectual  and  irresistible  call,  or 
regeneration. 

In  regard  to  this  method  of  interpretation,  I  will 
make  three  statements : 

1.  It  is  pure  sophistry — a  petitio  principii — what 
is  required  to  be  proved  is  taken  for  granted. 

2.  It  changes  what  is  divinely  intended  as  the 
antecedent  into  its  consequent,  thus  turning  theol- 
ogy, and  common  sense  as  well,  upside  down.     The 
condition,  or  means,  and  the  giving,  is  the  sequence 
and  end.      But  in  the  light  of  Calvinism,  the  giving 
is  both  the  end  and  antecedent,  and  the  asking  is 
the  sequence. 

Take  another  example:  "He  that  believeth  on 
the  Son  hath  everlasting  life"  (John  iii.  36).  In 
the  judgment  of  common  sense,  everlasting  life  is 
conditioned  upon  believing,  and  hence,  that  he  who, 
or  all  that,  or  whosoever  believes  in  Christ  has  ever- 
lasting life.  But  in  the  light  of  Calvinism,  he  who, 
or  all  that,  or  whosoever  has  everlasting  life,  be- 
lieves on  Christ. 


EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT.  393 

3.  This  method  of  interpretation  is  the  result  of 
a  studied  effort  to  force  the  plainest  texts  of  the 
Bible  into  harmony  with  the  wild  conceits  of  Au- 
gustinianism.  It  is  simply  wholesale  Bible  perver- 
sion, and  Augustinians  would  not  dare  take  such 
liberty  with  any  other  language  than  that  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures. 

If  a  Calvinist  says  to  his  child:  "Son,  if  you 
will  bring  me  your  book,  I  will  teach  you  your  les- 
son;" both  understand  the  proposition  in  a  com- 
mon sense  way..  The  father  does  net  mean,  nor 
does  the  child  understand  him  to  mean,  that  if  the 
father  teaches  the  child  the  lesson,  then  it  will 
bring  him  the  book.  Yet  when  Christ  says, 
4 '  Come  unto  me  .  .  .  and  I  will  give  you  rest, ' '  Cal- 
vinism requires  it  to  mean:  "If  I  give  you  rest,  re- 
generate you,  save  you,  then  you  will  come  unto  me.' ' 

By  this  perverse  interpretation,  antecedent  and 
consequent  are  made  to  change  places;  condition- 
ality  is  swept  from  the  Bible,  human  freedom  is 
ignored,  and  the  Bible  forced  into  an  illusive  har- 
mony with  limitarianism,  and  a  limited  atonement 
of  course. 

But  the  whole  scheme,  as  we  have  seen,  over- 
reaches the  divine  veracity  by  arraigning  natural 
religion  and  revealed  religion  against  each  other, 
and  therefore  can  not  be  true. 

Having  considered  the  bearing  of  the  human  and 
also  of  the  divine  side  of  Christ's  character,  upon 
the  extent  of  the  atonement,  I  propose  now  to  in- 
quire whether  there  is  any  thing  in  human  nature 
itself  that  favors  the  idea  of  a  partial  atonement. 


394  EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT. 

i.  If,  according  to  the  concessions  of  Calvinists, 
all  men  have  a  common  origin  or  nature — were  all 
alike  created  in  the  image  or  likeness  of  God — have 
common  characteristics,  have  the  same  attributes — 
mental,  physical,  and  moral;  whatever  differences 
come  to  exist  among  them  are  properly  referable  to 
adventitious  circumstances  and  individual  self-de- 
termination, and  not  to  any  thing  in  their  original 
characteristics. 

As  the  whole  race  existed  ideally  in  the  divine 
purpose  anterior  to  the  creation?  all  sustain  the 
same  relation  to  the  Creator.  All  these  ideal  hu- 
man beings  were  equally  meritorious  and  demerito- 
rious. 

That  some  of  these  ideal  human  beings  should 
have  actual  existence  with  the  inevitability  of  end- 
less life,  and  others  with  the  inevitability  of  endless 
death,  is  certainly  a  conception  which  no  rational 
mind  ever  spontaneously  conceived. 

Nothing  but  a  remorseless  logic,  founded  on  false 
premises,  could  force  such  an  idea  into  a  rational 
mind.  The  false  premises  are  found  in  the  Augus- 
tinian  ^assumption  of  absolute  foreordination  of  all 
things;*  or,  which  is  the  same  thing  in  another 
form,  viz.  :  that  all  the  events  of  time  are  only  the 
executions  of  the  decrees  of  eternity.  The  omnipo- 
tent Creator  had  the  power  to  create  some  men  and 
angels  for  heaven,  and  others  for  hell,  if  he  willed 
so  to  do.  But  the  idea  of  pretemporal  election  ,and 
reprobation  is  in  any  sense  preposterous;  for,  ac- 
cording to  the  theory,  the  decree  of  election  was 
anterior  to  the  creation.  There  consequently  was 


EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT.  395 

nothing  from  which  to  choose  but  the  ideals  of  the 
divine  mind,  and  those  were  just  what  the  divine 
idealizer  chose  to  make  them. 

The  divine  volition»is  not  put  forth  in  choosing 
between  existing  things,  but  in  determining  to 
what  end  or  destiny  non-existent  things  shall  be 
made. 

But,  while  there  can  be  no  ground  or  reason  for 
a  choice  between  non-existent  creatures,  there  is, 
so  far  as  human  sagacity  knows,  no  reason  in  the 
divine  mind  for  creating  some  men  for  eternal  life, 
and  others  for  eternal  death.  Indeed,  while  human 
intelligence  can  assign  no  such  reason,  the  noblest 
emotions  of  the  human  soul  recoil  at  the  idea. 

Nothing  but  the  gratuitous  Augustinian  assump- 
tion that  all  the  events  of  time  are  purely  the  exe- 
cution of  the  decrees  of  eternity  could  reconcile 
Augustinians  to  the  hard  doctrine  of  their  theory, 
a  limited  atonement,  etc. 

2.  God  in  nature  is  consistent  with  himself.  He 
makes  no  mistakes  in  adaptation  of  means  to  ends. 
He  invests  none  of  his  creatures  with  organs  and 
susceptibilities  unsuited  to  the  ends  of  their  exist- 
ence. The  law  of  parsimony,  so  far  as  we  can  con- 
ceive, is  characteristic  of  all  his  works,  while  noth- 
ing is  deficient  in  organs  and  instrumentalities, 
nothing  is  burdened  with  a  wasteful  redundancy. 
If  we  sometimes  encounter  in  plants  or  animals  or- 
gans and  susceptibilities  whose  uses  we  do  not  under- 
stand, this  furnishes  us  no  evidence  that  they  are 
useless.  It  only  indicates  our  ignorance  of  their 
use. 


396  EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  find  individuals  who  are 
wanting  in  some  things  common  to  the  species, 
they  do  not  disprove  the  rule,  but  as  exceptions  to 
the  rule  only  prove  it.  Hance,  every  organ  and 
susceptibility  of  the  body  presupposes  an  end,  to 
which  it  sustains  the  relation  of  an  appropriate 
means. 

The  eye  presupposes  the  existence  of  objects, 
which  may  become  known  through  its  instrumen- 
tality. So  it  is  of  all  the  senses.  If  there  were  no 
external  objects,  to  which  these  organs  are  correlat- 
ed, and  a  knowledge  of  which  is  acquirable  through 
them,  then  these  eyes,  ears,  etc.,  are  useless  appen- 
dages. But  their  very  existence  presupposes  these 
objects. 

So  it  is  of  the  physical  appetites  and  desires. 
Their  very  existence  presupposes  ends  of  which 
they  are  the  appropriate  means,  and  conditions — 
e.  g.  :  Hunger  presupposes  bodily  susteiitation  or 
preservation  as  an  end,  and  also  implies  the  exist- 
ence of  food  as  a  means  to  that  end.  The  hunger- 
ings  of  the  nursing  child  presupposes  an  end,  and 
implies  the  existence  of  a  nursing  mother  as  the 
appropriate  means  to  that  end. 

What  we  find  to  be  true  in  the  sphere  of  the  phys- 
ical and  perishable,  is  supposed  to  be  true  in  the 
sphere  of  t  the  spiritual  and  imperishable.  The 
power  of  thought  presupposes  knowledge  as  an 
end,  and  implies  the  possibility  of  means  or  instru- 
mentalities for  its  attainment.  The  sensibilities 
presuppose  happiness  as  an  end,  and  implies  the 
possibility  of  its  acquisition.  The  faculty  of  will 


EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT.  397 

presupposes  its  achievements  as  an  end,  and  im- 
plies the  probability  of  the  accomplishment  of  this 
end. 

The  proofs  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  apart 
from  the  Bible,  rest  exclusively  upon  this  kind  of 
evidence  in  the  presupposition  of  ends,  and  the 
implication  of  the  possibility  of  their  attainment 
from  the  susceptibilities,  yearnings,  and  aspirations 
of  the  human  soul. 

The  soul  recoils  at  the  idea  of  annihilation,  and 
longs  and  yearns  for  continuity  of  being.  This 
aversion  to  extinction  of  being,  and  yearning  for 
continuity  of  existence  is  a  divine  implantation,  and 
presages  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  Immortality 
is  a  presupposition  of  the  soul,  without  which  many 
of  our  mental  states  admit  of  no  rational  explana- 
tion. 

Among  these  mental  phenomena  may  be  noted 
the  sense  of  accountability,  the  intuition  of  right- 
ness  or  wrongness,  or  of  moral  distinctions,  of  the 
rectitude  of  human  motives,  of  the  duty  of  self- 
restraint,  a  feeling  of  dependence  upon  a  power 
outside  of  ourselves,  a  deep  longing  for  help  and 
sympathy  and  protection  from  something  which  we 
invest  with  divine  attributes  and  pray  to,  believe  in, 
rely  upon,  and  worship  as  God. 

These  mental  phenomena  are  not  the  products  of 
education,  of  habit,  or  of  adventitious  circum- 
stances; but  are  indigenous  to  the  human  mind. 
Hence,  they  have  a  sway  co-existent  or  co-exten- 
sive with  humanity.  They  are  a  fundamental  part 
of  the  mind  itself. 


398  EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT. 

Education,  prejudice  against  forms  of  religion 
in  which  they  are  prominently  recognized,  and  the- 
ories of  universal  doubt  may  so  far  hold  them  in 
abeyance  as  to  prevent  any  visible  or  external  man- 
ifestation; but  nothing  short  of  omnipotence  can 
obliterate  them  from  the  soul.  They  are  indige- 
nous to  the  mind  itsfelf,  and  to  exterminate  them 
would  be  to  extinguish  the  light  of  the  soul.  But 
as  in  the  physical,  so  in  the  spiritual  world,  these 
hungerings  after  immortality,  which  is  the  future 
good,  presupposes  the  possibility  of  the  attainment 
of  that  good. 

Unless  this  is  true,  we  must  suppose  that  nature 
is  not  true  to  itself,  or  rather  that  God  has  inspired 
nature  with  false  hopes  and  tantalizing  aspirations 
and  expectations,  made  incapable  of  realization  by 
a  divine  decree. 

Man,  by  the  play  of  his  own  imagination,  may 
awaken  within  himself  desires,  and  may  fondly 
cherish  expectations  which  he  can  never  realize; 
but  this  is  because  he  misreads  the  characteristics 
of  his  own  nature,  or  surrenders  himself  to  the  do- 
minion of  fancy,  rather  than  to  the  law  of  God 
within  himself. 

But  God's  book  of  nature  is  true  to  the  letter. 
No  false  promises  are  there  recorded,  and  no  illu- 
sive hopes  inspired.  All  promised  is  faithfully 
promised  and  is  assuredly  capable  of  realization. 
These  facts  of  natural  religion  may  be  summed  up 
in  a  clear  and  conclusive  argument  after  this  fash- 
ion: 

All  that  is  presaged  or  foretokened  in  the  origi- 


EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT.  399 

nal  constitution  of  the  human  mind  is  by  the  Crea- 
tor made  attainable;  otherwise  humanity  is  in  it- 
self a  contradiction.  But  all  mind  in  its  normal 
and  unsophisticated  state,  desires  and  hopes  for  a 
happy  future,  a  blissful  immortality.  The  irresist- 
ible conclusion,  therefore,  is  that  God  created  all 
men  for  such  a  state,  and  that  its  attainment  in 
some  stage  of  every  person's  life  is  possible. 

If  this  argument  is  fallacious,  I  have  not  been 
able  to  detect  its  unsoundness.  But  if  the  doctrine 
of  pretemporal  election  and  reprobation,  and  of  a 
limited  atonement,  as  advocated  by  Calvinists,  is 
true,  then  it  is  true  that  there  never  was  a  period  in 
the  history  of  the  reprobate  when  the  attainment 
of  this  desire  was  a  possibility.  And  all  his  thirst- 
ings  and  longings  for  such  a  state  convict  his  God- 
given  nature  of  falsehood. 

Or  God,  in  the  natural  desires  and  longings  of 
their  nature,  gave  them  a  guaranty  of  the  possibil- 
ity of  eternal  life,  but  in  the  meantime  recorded  it 
in  the  book  of  sacred  decrees,  that  they  should  suf- 
fer eternal  death.  It  thus  appears  very  clear  that 
if  pretemporal  reprobation  and  its  technical  correl- 
ative— limited  atonement — are  true,  then  the  fun- 
damental facts  of  natural  and  revealed  religion  are 
in  hopeless  conflict. 

If  it  should  be  said  that  this  argument  might  be 
used  in  relation  to  mankind  in  a  normal  state,  but 
that  the  introduction  of  sin  into  the  world  has  so 
sadly  changed  the  order  of  things  that  the  argu- 
ment loses  all  its  pertinency  and  force,  I  reply  that 
according  to  Calvinism,  the  destiny  of  the  repro- 


400  EXTENT  OF  ATONEMENT. 

bate  was  fixed  long  anterior  to  the  creation  of  the 
earth  and  the  fall  of  man.  It  might  also  be  said 
that  according  to  a  true  theology  the  sin  of  Adam, 
considered  in  connection  with  the  mediation  of 
Christ,  has  not  compromised  the  salvation  of  a  sin- 
gle soul,  or  rendered  the  destruction  of  a  single 
soul  necessary. 

I  see  no  method  by  which  this  argument  in  favor 
of  an  atonement  for  every  human  being  can  be  set 
aside  or  weakened.  I  accordingly  feel  authorized 
in  saying  that  the  natural  desires  in  every  unso- 
phisticated human  breast  for  eternal  life  is  the  voice 
of  God  in  the  soul  proclaiming  its  attainment  pos- 
sible. It  should  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that 
the  possible  is  not  the  inevitable.  Salvation,  as  we 
have  had  occasion  to  state,  is  conditional.  Man  is 
free  and  may  never  comply  with  the  conditions, 
and  consequently  may  never  be  saved. 

The  possible  and  the  necessary  are  separated  by 
certain  things  called  conditions,  and  it  is  only  when 
the  "conditions"  are  supplied  that  the  possible  be- 
comes the  necessary. 

Salvation  to  the  rational  mind  is  conditioned 
upon  faith,  or  a  trustful  surrender  to  Christ. 

Not  until  this  is  done,  does  the  sinner's  possibil- 
ity of  salvation  become  a  real  salvation. 


A     000  054  191     2 


